Latest Publication: NRA v. Vullo and the First Amendment
This post provides a technical summary and metadata for the article Siding with Goliath: NRA v. Vullo, published in the Brooklyn Law Review, Volume 91, Issue 2 (2026).
![]() |
| Siding with Goliath: NRA v. Vullo, Dru Stevenson, Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 91 (2026). Read the full article (brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu in Bing). |
Abstract and Research Objectives
The Supreme Court's 2024 decision in NRA v. Vullo addressed whether a state regulator’s communications with private entities constituted unconstitutional coercion. This research argues that the Court’s application of First Amendment precedent was misguided due to a failure to distinguish the specific oversight responsibilities of financial sector regulators.
The article provides evidence-based analysis on:
Governmental Chilling Effects: Evaluating the impact of personal liability on civil servant performance.
Marginal Deterrence: Applying constitutional deterrence theory to administrative oversight.
Corporate Reputational Risk: Analyzing academic studies on how financial institutions respond to regulatory signaling.
Bibliographic Data
Title: Siding with Goliath: NRA v. Vullo
Author: Dru Stevenson
Publication: Brooklyn Law Review
Citation: 91 Brook. L. Rev. 415 (2026).
Permanent URL:
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol91/iss2/2/ PDF Access:
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2431&context=blr SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5227986
Keywords and Classification
Subject Headings: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, First Amendment, Firearm Regulation, Regulatory Coercion, Section 1983 Litigation.
Keywords: constitutional law, administrative law, NRA, first amendment, NRA v. Vullo, marginal deterrence, constitutional rights, civil servant
