Abstract
When government officials speak to the public, the First Amendment takes a mostly hands-off approach. Officials may promote a particular viewpoint with no obligation to give equal support to another. Officials can also criticize viewpoints they disagree with, even using strong language, and the Free Speech Clause will not stop them. That is, until their words cross the line from persuasion to coercion. While government officials may do their best to convince the public, they cannot make threats to silence speakers they disagree with. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo was about drawing that line between persuasion and coercion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 193 (1991).
- 2.
NRA v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024).
- 3.
372 U.S. 58 (1963).
- 4.
Id. at 63.
- 5.
Id. at 71–72.
- 6.
Documents filed in the case can be found on SCOTUSblog at the following link: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-rifle-association-of-america-v-vullo/ (last visited August 11, 2024).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2025 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McGreal, P.E. (2025). NRA v. Vullo: On the Line Between Government Persuasion and Government Coercion. In: Schweber, H. (eds) SCOTUS 2024. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78551-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78551-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-78550-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-78551-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)