The Hill Reports on NRA Settlement with DCAG

April 17, 2024 – The Hill reported today on a settlement agreement between Brewer client the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), the NRA Foundation, and the District of Columbia Attorney General (DCAG). The reporting includes comments from firm partner William Brewer, who responded to statements from DCAG Brian Schwalb as “distorted and untruthful.”

As stated by the NRA, “On April 16, 2024, the NRA and NRA Foundation entered into a consent order [resolving an August 2020 lawsuit], whereby the DCAG dismisses all claims against the NRA. The order contains no adverse finding against the NRA and no allegations regarding the use of funds of the NRA Foundation. There are no fines or penalties whatsoever against the NRA. DCAG Schwalb described the settlement differently.”

As reported by The Hill, the NRA also fought back against Schwalb’s characterization of the settlement in a statement to The Hill, with NRA counsel William Brewer calling it “distorted and untruthful.”

“The DCAG ‘spins’ today’s settlement in avoidance of the facts: the DCAG long ago abandoned any claims of wrongdoing against the NRA,” Brewer wrote. “Even by DC standards, this is rank political gamesmanship — an after-the-fact justification for a failed lawsuit by these officials.”

Brewer continued, claiming that many of the claims Schwalb alleged against the NRA Foundation were unfounded, specifically noting that the settlement agreement includes no accusations or implications of wrongdoing by the organization.

“In the face of these facts, the DCAG settled its lawsuit — abandoning all claims against the NRA and NRA Foundation,” he wrote.

Read more here.

Law360: NRA, LaPierre, Execs Seek to Ax Verdict

April 8, 2024 – Law360 reports that Brewer client the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is asking a New York judge to "throw out a Manhattan jury's verdict." A jury verdict was entered in the NYAG vs. NRA lawsuit on February 23, 2024.

According to the report, in its "motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the NRA argued that prosecutors did not prove that the organization itself failed to protect its charitable assets. The group said there was no proof at trial that its charitable assets, as opposed to noncharitable assets, were improperly administered, nor was there proof of a 'sustained or systematic failure of the board to exercise oversight.'"

"The trial record clearly demonstrates that the NRA was the victim of hidden arrangements and control overrides orchestrated by former insiders working with a handful of their favorite vendors," NRA attorney William A. Brewer III told Law360. "The record also demonstrates the NRA Board took swift, decisive action when it became aware of such conduct."

"The Board's commitment to good governance was on full display during the jury trial," he added. "The NRA appreciates the service of the jury, but believes it improperly attributed individual misconduct to the NRA. As such, the Association seeks judgment in its favor on all remaining counts."

Read the Law360 report (subscription required).

Washington Examiner Reports on Brewer Client NRA’s Legal Victory Against ATF

April 2, 2024 – The Washington Examiner reported on Brewer client NRA and its recent legal victory over the ATF. A Texas court recently enjoined the “pistol brace rule” from taking effect against NRA members. The legal win is the most expansive ruling of its kind to date – protecting millions of NRA members across the nation.

As reported in the article, “Big Win for NRA in Battle with Biden’s ATF,” “The decision followed other court rulings protecting the 3.7 million members of three other gun groups from the ATF action that abruptly changed the definition of rifles to include the AR pistols, among the most popular firearms in the country. Under the new rules, they will be taxed and registered.”

“The NRA will continue to play offense against this unconstitutional rule,” says NRA interim EVP and CEO Andrew Arulanandam. “This is yet another example of the NRA fighting for its members — and protecting the constitutional freedoms in which they believe.”

Law360 Reports on Legal Win for NRA

March 29, 2024 – Law360 reported today on a legal win for the NRA in its lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over the “pistol brace rule.”

The NRA filed suit in the Northern District of Texas on July 3, 2023, against the ATF, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Steven M. Dettelbach, in his official capacity as director of ATF, seeking to enjoin the ATF’s unconstitutional rule, which would have reversed its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.

As reported, “The court found that the final rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations, and that the NRA had a "substantial likelihood" of succeeding on the merits. According to the opinion, the gun rights group also demonstrated that it had Article III associational standing to bring the action on behalf of its members.”

According to Law360, the NRA successfully argued its members face irreparable harm from the new rule, which subjects law-abiding gun owners to penalties, fines, and potential prison sentences for the use of a brace. 

"The NRA has emerged as a leading voice in opposition to this unlawful attempt to limit Second Amendment freedom," said NRA counsel William A. Brewer III in a statement. "When it was determined NRA members could not benefit from other injunctions, the association moved to the tip of the spear in the advocacy and prevailed in obtaining sweeping relief for its members."

Joining Brewer in representing the NRA are firm partners Noah Peters and Matthew H. Davis.

Read more here.

Brewer Firm Scores Legal Victory for NRA in “Pistol Brace” Lawsuit

March 29, 2024 – The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) announced a major legal victory today, as a Texas court enjoined the “pistol brace rule” from taking effect against its members. The legal win is the most expansive ruling of its kind to date – protecting millions of NRA members across the nation.

The NRA filed suit in the Northern District of Texas on July 3, 2023, against the ATF, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Steven M. Dettelbach, in his official capacity as director of ATF (“Defendants”), seeking to enjoin the ATF’s unconstitutional rule, which would have reversed its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.

Today, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay agreed with the NRA that it has “associational standing” to pursue this case because it is a traditional membership organization whose members rely on the NRA to protect their gun rights. In other words, the NRA is the voice of its members. Further, Judge Lindsay applied the Fifth Circuit’s earlier holding in Mock v. Garland that the ATF failed to go through an appropriate notice-and-comment period before issuing its “pistol brace rule,” making major revisions to the rule without acknowledging the hundreds of thousands of negative comments from the NRA and its members across the nation, thus rendering it likely unlawful.

“The NRA has emerged as a leading voice in opposition to this unlawful attempt to limit Second Amendment freedom,” says NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “When it was determined NRA members could not benefit from other injunctions, the Association moved to the tip of the spear in the advocacy and prevailed in obtaining sweeping relief for its members.”

Joining Brewer in representing the NRA are firm partners Noah Peters and Matthew H. Davis.

New Republic Reports that NRA Appears to “Notch Another Victory” at Supreme Court

March 19, 2024 –New Republic Staff Writer Matt Ford writes that Supreme Court justices appear ready to side with the NRA in its First Amendment case against former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo.

He writes in the article following the Supreme Court arguments in the matter that, "By the end of the arguments, it was clear that whatever uncertain winds were swirling at the outset had shifted decidedly in the NRA’s favor.”

Ford writes that it is “hardly surprising” that the NRA would interpret Vullo’s actions as “unconstitutional threats,” noting that he previously wrote describing former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s campaign against the NRA as being blunt and heavy-handed, and Cuomo’s messaging about the NRA as “particularly venomous.” Ford predicted that the former governor’s “overheated rhetoric and ham-fisted tactics will backfire when the court hands down a ruling by the end of June.”

The Brewer firm has represented the NRA on this matter since its inception, advocating alongside First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh and the ACLU. 

The New York Times: Justices Seem Likely to Side with NRA in First Amendment Dispute

March 18, 2024 – The New York Times reports that a "majority of the Supreme Court appeared on Monday to embrace arguments by the National Rifle Association that a New York State official violated the First Amendment" when she encouraged banks and insurance agencies to cut ties with the gun rights organization in 2018. 

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, NRA v. Maria T. Vullo, in November 2023 after the Second Circuit dismissed the NRA's claims against Vullo, the former head of the New York State Department of Financial Services.

“It was a campaign by the state’s highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy,” said David D. Cole, the national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who argued on behalf of the NRA. He added that the officials’ actions had cost the group “millions of dollars.”

The Times reports that Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar described some of the NRA's claims as plausible in a friend-of-the-court brief, specifically that Vullo may have crossed a constitutional line "by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships" with the NRA. 

The Brewer firm has represented the NRA on this matter since its inception, advocating alongside First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh and the ACLU. 

Read the report. 

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."