Dru Stevenson, Professor of Law

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: An...

This post summarizes the First Circuit’s decision in Beckwith v. Frey (2025), which upheld Maine’s 72‑hour waiting period for firearm purchases. The court resolved the case at Bruen Step 1, concluding that waiting‑period laws regulate the commercial acquisition of firearms rather than conduct protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text. This post outlines the court’s reasoning, doctrinal significance, and implications for post‑ Bruen litigation. Background Maine enacted a 72‑hour waiting period for all firearm purchases. A district court enjoined the law, but the First Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claim. Backstory   While the First Circuit panel was unanimous, it’s worth noting that Maine—the state in question—has a unique legal culture regarding firearms. For decades, Maine resisted waiting periods, priding itself on a "sporting" tradition. It wasn't until the tragic mass shooting in ...

The Seventh Circuit issued three Second Amendment decisions on April 2, all involving the federal felon‑in‑possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The most notable is United States v. Prince , where Judge Easterbrook—writing for a unanimous panel—brought the Seventh Circuit into alignment with every other federal circuit by rejecting a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). The court emphasized that the statute has many unquestionably constitutional applications, which is enough to defeat a facial attack under standard principles of constitutional adjudication. The panel was careful, however, not to resolve the more difficult question that has occupied courts since Bruen : whether § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to individuals whose prior convictions are non‑violent or otherwise do not suggest dangerousness. That issue remains open in the Seventh Circuit. A companion case, United States v. Watson , illustrates the court’s incremental approach. Chief Judge Brennan upheld § 92...

  Academic Presentations and Invited Talks – Complete Dataset This page provides a structured dataset of academic presentations and invited talks by Dru Stevenson, Vinson & Elkins Research Professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.  Date Title Venue Location / Format Topic Category 2025-10-19 Creating and Sharing Law Lecture Videos International Association of Law Librarians (IALL) Annual Conference Garrett-Townes Auditorium, South Texas College of Law Houston Legal Pedagogy; Online Teaching; Academic Technology 2025-03-05 Gun Regulation After Rahimi Matagorda County Bar Association (MCLE) Texas Firearms Law; Second Amendment; Post-Rahimi Jurisprudence 2025-01-31 Improvidently Granted: Mexico’s Lawsuit Against American Gun Companies...

  The following table provides a comprehensive, structured catalog of academic blog posts and online essays regarding firearms law and policy authored by Professor Dru Stevenson (South Texas College of Law Houston), formatted specifically for easy data extraction and analysis. Duke Center for Firearms Law: Second Thoughts Blog Title Blog / Website Date Subtopic Link In the End, Vullo Prevails Against the N.R.A. Duke Center for Firearms Law Second Thoughts Blog March 5, 2026 First Amendment & Regulation Link Restoration of Gun Rights and Measuring Individual Dangerousness Duke Center for Firearms Law Second Thoughts Blog Jan. 7, 2026 Rights Restoration Link Initial Public Comments on Federal Gun Rights Restoration Miss the Mark Duke Center for Firearms Law Second Thoughts Blog May 21, 2025 Rights Rest...

What happens when an unstoppable force meets a bureaucratic wall? For years, the legal battle between the NRA and Maria Vullo was framed as a grand constitutional showdown—a fight for the very soul of the First Amendment. But if you look closer, the story isn’t just about free speech. It’s about the "efficiency of litigation." We often think of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of truth, but in this case, the clock simply ran out. With the recent denial of cert, a decade-long crusade ended not with a bang, but with a ledger. It turns out that in the world of high-stakes law, the most expensive victory is the one you never actually win. I’ve unpacked the "rest of the story" regarding the NRA’s unsuccessful retaliatory litigation over at the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Read the full analysis here: In the End, Vullo Prevails Against the NRA

 We’ve all heard the complaints—and perhaps made them ourselves. Whether it's during a campaign season or a frustrating afternoon at a government office, the refrain is always the same: "Why can't the government just run like a business?" We imagine a world where a leader could simply snap their fingers and make the "trains run on time." We crave the streamlined efficiency of a CEO who can pivot a company in a single afternoon. In our civic imagination, "checks and balances" often feel like nothing more than red tape and gridlock. But what if I told you that the Founding Fathers were actually some of history’s most brilliant (if accidental) economists? The Monopoly Problem In a traditional market, we loathe monopolies. Why? Because without competition, there is no incentive to improve quality or lower prices. A monopolist becomes unresponsive and self-centered. As it turns out, the same is true in politics. A political monopoly—an autocracy or a d...