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...