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...

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