FOX News Reports on NRA’s Argument Before Supreme Court
March 18, 2024 – FOX News reports today on arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in a leading First Amendment case – NRA v. Vullo.
As reported, “Before the high court is the case National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, which questions whether a government regulator threatens regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, allegedly because of the government's own hostility to the speaker's viewpoint, violates the First Amendment.” Oral arguments are set for March 18.
FOX reports, “Dozens of political leaders, lawmakers, scholars and organizations have filed or joined amicus briefs in support of the NRA’s position, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)…”
"Public officials cannot be allowed to abuse their regulatory powers to blacklist an organization just because they oppose its political views. If New York is allowed to do this to the NRA, it will provide a playbook for other state officials to abuse their authority to target groups they don’t like," said ACLU Legal Director David Cole.
"This case is important to the NRA and all advocacy organizations who rely upon the protections of the First Amendment," says NRA counsel and Brewer Partner William A. Brewer III. "Many groups will benefit when the Court reminds government officials that they cannot use intimidation tactics, backdoor censorship, or regulatory blacklisting to silence those with whom they disagree."
New York Sun Reports on Supreme Court Argument
March 14, 2024 – The New York Sun reports on an upcoming Supreme Court argument in the NRA v. Vullo matter. According to the Sun, an “epic First Amendment clash” surrounds the legal case – filed in 2018 by the NRA against former New York state financial regulator Maria T. Vullo.
According to the article, “The NRA – noting the immense power of New York financial regulators to oversee licensing, impose fines, and launch investigations – contends that the superintendent of the state’s Department of Financial Services, Maria Vullo – under the direction of Governor Cuomo – abused that power by encouraging insurers and banks to blacklist the NRA because of their distaste with the group’s Second Amendment advocacy.”
“If the NRA prevails, it will be positioned to pursue damages against Governor Cuomo, Maria Vullo, NYAG Letitia James, and the State of New York. The message will be loud and clear: the First Amendment belongs to the people, and public officials cannot wield government power to censor, suppress, or bankrupt their political enemies,” NRA’s counsel, William A. Brewer III, tells the Sun.
The case is important to any advocacy organizations that rely on First Amendment protections, he added.
See the report here: The Sun
Houston Chronicle Reports on Texas Voting Rights Initiative
March 15, 2024 – The Houston Chronicle newspaper reports on Brewer Storefront and its newly announced Texas Voting Rights Initiative. The article notes that the Storefront sent warning letters to two school districts in the Houston area – Humble Independent School District and the Angleton Independent School District.
The letters accuse the school district of violating the Voting Rights Act with their current at large system of electing trustees in May. Brewer Storefront is the community service affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. The article noted that the letters said each school district could have at least one Hispanic opportunity district, where the Hispanic voting population makes up more than 50% of the district’s residents, adopt a single member district election system and move elections to November, when there is higher voter turnout.
Partner William Brewer III told the Chronicle that the letters represented “pleas to do the right thing.” He added, “It’s an age-old story: white dominated school boards, despite the fact that the majority of users of the service are the ones who have no representation.”
He added that the initiative will expand to other districts in the state and that, “We started here, (but) it’s not where we hope it ends.”
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Reports on Brewer Storefront Voting Rights Efforts in Tarrant County
March 13, 2024 – The Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper reports on Brewer Storefront and its newly-announced Texas Voting Rights Initiative (TVRI). As reported, the Storefront sent warning letters to two school districts in Tarrant County – Arlington Independent School District and Eagle Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District.
The letters accuse the school districts of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and denying voters of color an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Brewer Storefront is the community service affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. Announced on March 7, 2024, the TVRI will continue to analyze voting systems used for electing school board trustees and city council members across Texas, advance written scholarship, and pursue legal action to uphold and strengthen voting rights.
“What we’re hoping is that the letters would be greeted with a positive response and that the outcome would be an invitation to work with our experts to help define a voting system that actually encourages participation and engender change,” William Brewer III told the Star-Telegram.
The report noted that Brewer stated that he hopes the school districts will work with his team to address the issues, but the firm is also prepared to effect change through the courts.
Read more here.
Brewer Storefront Launches Texas Voting Rights Initiative; Calls on Communities to Comply With Voting Rights Act of 1965
March 7, 2024, Dallas, Texas…The Brewer Storefront today announced the launch of the Texas Voting Rights Initiative (“TVRI”), a statewide effort focused on ensuring that Texas school boards operate in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). The Storefront undertook an extensive analysis of voting systems across Texas and believes that many operate in violation of the VRA.
The TVRI will continue to analyze voting systems used for electing school board trustees and city council members across Texas, advance written scholarship, and pursue legal action to uphold and strengthen voting rights.
The TVRI is supported by the Brewer Storefront, the public service legal affiliate of the national litigation firm Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. Since its establishment in 1995, the Storefront has brought numerous successful voting rights lawsuits on behalf of Latino, African American and Asian voters across North Texas.
“The Texas Voting Rights Initiative will promote democratic principles and voter equality at an important time,” said William A. Brewer III, chairman of the Storefront. “We believe our political institutions work best when they give all voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing.”
Why It Matters – Equality and Opportunity in Education
A lack of diversity and equitable geographic representation on school boards often leads to underfunded schools, school and student achievement gaps, and disenfranchised voters.
In Texas, a considerable academic achievement gap still exists between white and minority students. In 2023, 64% of white students met grade level across all grades and subjects tested on the STAAR exam, compared to 42% of Hispanic students and 36% of African American students who met grade level. Given this disparity, Brewer Storefront believes the communities of color that Texas school districts educate deserve fair representation on elected school boards.
The need for a statewide voting rights initiative in Texas is critical, given its status as the nation’s second largest state, with a population exceeding 30 million people. Texas is a majority-minority state, with Hispanics as its largest population group. Despite this, many elected bodies, including local school boards and city councils, fail to reflect the state’s demographics, especially as voters of color continue to make up an increasing share of the electorate.
The TVRI’s initial focus is on school boards since as of last year, nearly three-quarters of the students enrolled in Texas public schools were children of color, and about 53% of all students were Hispanic.
The Storefront has successfully challenged many at-large election systems and inequitably drawn single-member districts. Through lawsuits filed under the Voting Rights Act, these challenges have argued that such systems deprive voters of color of a fair opportunity to meaningfully participate in the electoral process and to elect school board representatives or city council members of their choosing.
The Storefront pursues its voting rights cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. This advocacy frequently results in the establishment of single-member districts, ensuring minority voters have a fair opportunity in the electoral process and enabling them to actively participate in shaping the political landscape.
Following its assessment, the TVRI, through the Storefront, issued warning letters to 11 Texas school districts alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The school districts are Alamo Heights Independent School District, Angleton Independent School District, Arlington Independent School District, Corsicana Independent School District, Dumas Independent School District, Eagle Mountain-Saginaw Independent School District, Garland Independent School District, Humble Independent School District, Lufkin Independent School District, New Braunfels Independent School District, and Texarkana Independent School District.
“We urge these school districts to take proactive steps in adopting election systems that comply with the Voting Rights Act and create districts that give voters of color a fair opportunity to participate in the electoral process,” Brewer said. “Elected school boards should reflect the diversity of the communities they serve.”
The letters request that the school boards in these districts take corrective actions and implement opportunity districts where a majority of eligible voters are Hispanic or African American.
The Storefront previously achieved winning outcomes in Voting Rights Act cases with the Lewisville Independent School District in August 2023, Richardson Independent School District in 2019, Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District in 2015; City of Grand Prairie in 2015; Irving Independent School District in 2014; Grand Prairie Independent School District in 2014; City of Farmers Branch in 2012; and City of Irving in 2009. These school districts and city councils now utilize remodeled voting systems.
Contact:
Katherine Leal Unmuth
Brewer Storefront Associate Director
214.653.4832 kunmuth@brewerattorneys.com
Dallas Morning News Reports on Brewer Storefront Texas Voting Rights Initiative
March 7, 2024 – The Dallas Morning News reports that Brewer Storefont sent warning letters to 11 Texas school districts alleging that their election systems violate the Voting Rights Act.
Brewer Storefront is the community service affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. The article reports that the letters emphasize that at large election systems used by many school districts to elect school board trustees deny voters of color an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
In an Interview with the Morning News, Partner William A. Brewer III emphasized the importance of diversity in school board representation, noting that "We've picked districts where we believe that the performance gaps really compel us, if we care, to try to engender a change."
The article noted that the firm, along with sending the letters, is launching the Texas Voting Rights Initiative, a statewide effort to ensure trustee elections comply with the law.
"Our demographics have changed," Brewer said. "And our systems need to respond to that."
Read more here.
New York Sun Publishes Editorial in Support of NRA
March 5, 2024 – The New York Sun published an editorial today in support of Brewer client the NRA. The editorial, “Good News for the NRA – and New York,” commented on the “dissolution lawsuit” filed by the New York Attorney General against the NRA. A jury trial recently concluded in the matter.
The Sun wrote, “We wouldn’t want the week to go by without a word of congratulations to the National Rifle Association, one of America’s most venerable and distinguished civil rights organizations. The worst of the legal onslaught launched by Governor Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General Letitia James has passed. Despite their best efforts to close the doors of the NRA, a Manhattan jury’s verdict leaves the organization intact.”
The publication continued, “Someday, no doubt, the historians are going to mark what happened in this case as a politically motivated prosecution designed to dismantle a non-profit organization whose views cut against the liberal orthodoxy prevailing in the Empire State. Why else would General James emphasize the NRA’s role as “the largest and most influential pro-gun organization in the nation” when she filed her suit “seeking to dissolve” the group?”
NRA Responds to New York Trial Verdict; Decision Validates NRA’s Position Regarding Wrongdoing by Certain Vendors and Insiders
February 23, 2024 – A jury verdict in a high-profile New York trial confirms what the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) contended all along – that it was victimized by certain former vendors and “insiders” who abused the trust placed in them by the Association. The jury found no cause to remove NRA General Counsel and Secretary John Frazer, the remaining NRA employee who is an individual defendant in the action.
NRA officials set a confident tone today following the verdict in the New York Attorney General v. NRA lawsuit. In August, 2020, the NYAG filed a “dissolution lawsuit” against the NRA, along with claims against four individual defendants: former EVP Wayne LaPierre; Frazer; former CFO Wilson Phillips; and former Chief of Staff Joshua Powell.
The NYAG originally sought to put the NRA out of business. She had claimed the actions in question led “to the loss of more than $64 million in just three years.” But the allegations by the NYAG that survived to the jury-verdict stage were starkly diminished relative to their complaint: as jury deliberations approached, the government was forced to drop half of its whistleblower allegations for lack of evidence, along with a number of conflict-of-interest claims.
During a 24-day jury trial, the NRA established the NYAG cannot prove self-dealing or bad faith by the NRA Board of Directors. The NRA disputed key allegations in the NYAG’s complaint – namely, that any governance issues at the NRA are “persistent.” As importantly, the NRA established that it adopted new policies and accounting controls, displaced vendors and “insiders” who abused the Association, and accepted reparations for costs determined to be excess benefits. Most of these corrective measures – part of an internal investigation ignited by the NRA Board – were adopted before the NYAG filed her lawsuit.
The NRA’s commitment to good governance was on full display during the trial proceedings.
“We appreciate the service of the jury and the opportunity to present evidence about the positive direction of the NRA today,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “NRA members should be heartened by the NRA’s commitment to best practices, and we will continue to amplify our compliance record in the pivotal next phase of these proceedings. To the extent there were control violations, they were acted upon immediately by the NRA Board beginning in summer 2018.”
Of particular importance, the six-person jury found that of 10 related-party transactions of which the NRA was accused, the NRA Audit Committee was found to have properly reviewed and ratified 8 of them. However, the six-person jury found that many of the business arrangements in which the NRA entered were appropriate and did not qualify as improper related party transactions. However, the six-person jury rendered a verdict that found the NRA failed to properly administer the organization and its assets, and that it violated whistleblower protections of New York Nonprofit Law.
With respect to other individual defendants, the jury found Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Phillips violated their statutory obligations to discharge the duties of their position in good faith and with care. The jury found the monetary harm suffered by the NRA for each individual was $5.4 million and $2 million, respectively. (Defendant Powell reached a settlement with the NYAG prior to the start of the jury proceedings.)
The jury decision paves the way for the second phase of the proceedings – a bench trial before Justice Joel M. Cohen where the judge is expected to rule on any final remedies against defendants.
In the final analysis, individual defendants could face financial awards payable to the NRA. No money damages will be awarded against the Association.
The NRA’s case focused on its compliance efforts and the organization’s commitment to good governance following summer 2018 whistleblower complaints and the substantial evidence that it was the victim of fraud by a number of its vendors. When the NRA Board was alerted to these facts, it led an investigation into spending allegations and determined that certain individuals participated in transactions that ran afoul of NRA policies and procedures. Trial testimony confirmed the NRA Board was unaware of the arrangements in question.
In furtherance of its governance reforms, the NRA terminated a string of vendors, including Ackerman McQueen/Mercury Group, Associated Television, International, Under Wild Skies, and a travel consultancy. It cancelled consulting arrangements with certain NRA board members, adopted a new whistleblower policy in 2020, and recently hired a new compliance manager.
“A parade of NRA witnesses and independent experts established that the NRA was the victim of actions that were pursued in secrecy and not in the interests of the Association – by former vendors and fiduciaries,” says NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “In any event, the NYAG’s case focused on the past and the NRA lives in the present. It was the NRA that ultimately established the record being pursued by the NYAG. Our client looks forward to phase two of these proceedings – emboldened by its record of good governance.”
Although it was not a matter before the jury, the NRA effectively demonstrated that the NYAG’s lawsuit was motivated by political animus. As a candidate for NYAG in summer 2018, Letitia James called the NRA a “terrorist organization” and “criminal enterprise.” She vowed to pursue the NRA if elected, and quickly did so upon taking office in 2019.
Other New York Actions: Defending Free Speech
Against the backdrop of the NYAG trial, the NRA is preparing for another case involving New York government officials. On March 18, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the NRA’s First Amendment case against former financial regulator Maria T. Vullo.
In a May 2018 lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and conspired to use the regulatory power of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) to “financially blacklist” the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech. The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions as DFS superintendent were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.
The NRA's First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court’s ruling, the Second Circuit struck down the NRA’s claims.
On February 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit decision. On November 3, 2023, the Court granted review on the following question: Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy?
Since that time, more than 190 individuals and organizations have filed 22 amicus briefs in support of the NRA’s legal position. If successful, the NRA ultimately aims to prove Vullo, Cuomo and others conspired with James to penalize the NRA for its protected speech. Such developments could help the Association resurrect First Amendment claims against James, as well as unseal materials from an earlier discovery phase of the case.
“The NRA is eager to break the seal on facts surrounding an unprecedented weaponization of power against the NRA and its speech,” says Brewer. “There is little question former and current public officials were conspiring with Everytown and others to financially damage and politically suppress the NRA. Their actions harmed democracy and the rule of law – and letting relevant facts and documents remain secret does, too.”