NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
注：在可行的情况下，将在发表意见时发布提纲（标题注释），本案即是如此。
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
该提纲不构成法院意见的一部分，而是由裁决报告人为了方便读者而编写的。见美国诉底特律木材公司案，200 U. S. 321, 337。

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
美国最高法院

No. 22-842. Argued March 18, 2024-Decided May 30, 2024
第 22-842 号2024 年 3 月 18 日辩论-2024 年 5 月 30 日裁决

Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) sued respondent Maria Vullo-former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)—alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy.
请愿人全国步枪协会（NRA）起诉被告 Maria Vullo--纽约金融服务部（DFS）的前任主管--声称 Vullo 胁迫受 DFS 监管的各方惩罚或压制 NRA 的枪支推广宣传，违反了第一修正案。
The Second Circuit held that Vullo's alleged actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement. The Court granted certiorari to address whether the NRA's complaint states a First Amendment claim.
第二巡回法院认为，Vullo 被指控的行为构成允许的政府言论和合法执法。法院准予延期审理，以解决全国枪支协会的申诉是否涉及宪法第一修正案的问题。

The NRA's "well-pleaded factual allegations," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678-679, are taken as true at this motion-to-dismiss stage.
在此动议驳回阶段，NRA 的 "有理有据的事实指控"（Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678-679）被视为属实。
DFS regulates insurance companies and financial services institutions doing business in New York, and has the power to initiate investigations and civil enforcement actions, as well as to refer matters for criminal prosecution.
金融服务部负责监管在纽约开展业务的保险公司和金融服务机构，并有权启动调查和民事执法行动，以及将案件移交刑事起诉。
The NRA contracted with DFS-regulated entitiesaffiliates of Lockton Companies, LLC (Lockton)—-to administer insurance policies the NRA offered as a benefit to its members, which Chubb Limited (Chubb) and Lloyd's of London (Lloyd's) would then underwrite.
NRA 与受 DFS 监管的洛克顿有限责任公司（Lockton Companies, LLC，Lockton）下属实体签订合同，管理 NRA 作为会员福利提供的保单，然后由 Chubb 有限公司（Chubb）和伦敦劳埃德保险公司（Lloyd's）承保。
In 2017, Vullo began investigating one of these affinity insurance policies-Carry Guard-on a tip passed along from a gun-control advocacy group.
2017 年，Vullo 根据一个枪支管制倡导组织提供的线索，开始调查其中一种亲和保险--"持枪卫士"。
The investigation revealed that Carry Guard insured gun owners from intentional criminal acts in violation of New York law, and that the NRA promoted Carry Guard without the required insurance producer license. Lockton and Chubb subsequently suspended Carry Guard.
调查显示，Carry Guard 为枪支所有者的蓄意犯罪行为投保违反了纽约法律，而且 NRA 在未获得所需的保险生产商许可证的情况下推广 Carry Guard。Lockton 和 Chubb 随后暂停了 Carry Guard 的资格。
Vullo then expanded her investigation into the NRA's other affinity insurance programs.
随后，Vullo 将调查范围扩大到 NRA 的其他亲和保险项目。

On February 27, 2018, Vullo met with senior executives at Lloyd's,
2018 年 2 月 27 日，武罗会见了劳合社的高级管理人员、

expressed her views in favor of gun control, and told the Lloyd's executives "that DFS was less interested in pursuing" infractions unrelated to any NRA business "so long as Lloyd's ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA." App. to Pet. for Cert.
她表达了支持枪支管制的观点，并告诉劳合社高管 "只要劳合社停止向枪支团体，特别是全国枪支协会提供保险，DFS 对追究 "与任何全国枪支协会业务无关的违规行为 "兴趣不大"。App.
at 199200, 『21.
Vullo and Lloyd's struck a deal: Lloyd's "would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business," and "in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming affinity-insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA.” Id., at 223, .
Vullo 和劳合社达成了协议：劳合社 "将指示其辛迪加停止承保与枪支相关的保单，并缩减与全国枪支协会相关的业务"，而 "作为交换，外勤部将把其即将开展的亲和保险执法行动的重点仅仅放在那些为全国枪支协会提供服务的辛迪加上"。同上，第 223 页， 。

On April 19, 2018, Vullo issued letters entitled, "Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations." Id., at 246-251 (Guidance Letters).
2018 年 4 月 19 日，Vullo 发布了题为 "与全国枪支协会和类似枪支推广组织有关的风险管理指南 "的信函。同上，第 246-251 页（指导信函）。
In the Guidance Letters, Vullo "encourage[d]" DFS-regulated entities to: (1) "continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations"; (2) "review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations"; and (3) "take prompt actions to manag[e] these risks and promote public health and safety." Id., at 248, 251.
在指导信中，Vullo "鼓励 "受 DFS 监管的实体(1) "继续评估和管理因与全国枪支协会或类似枪支推广组织打交道而可能产生的风险，包括声誉风险"；(2) "审查与全国枪支协会或类似枪支推广组织的任何关系"；(3) "迅速采取行动管理这些风险，促进公众健康和安全"。同上，第 248 和 251 页。
Vullo and Governor Cuomo also issued a joint press release echoing many of the letters' statements, and " 'urg[ing] all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York'" to join those " 'that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.'" Id., at 244.
Vullo 和州长 Cuomo 还发布了一份联合新闻稿，对信件中的许多声明表示赞同，并"'敦促'所有在纽约开展业务的保险公司和银行''加入那些''已经终止与 NRA 安排的公司和银行的行列''"。同上，第 244 页。
DFS subsequently entered into separate consent decrees with Lockton, Chubb, and Lloyd's, in which the insurers admitted violations of New York's insurance law, agreed not to provide any NRA-endorsed insurance programs (even if lawful), and agreed to pay multimillion dollar fines.
DFS 随后分别与 Lockton、Chubb 和 Lloyd's 签订了同意令，在同意令中，这些保险公司承认违反了纽约保险法，同意不提供任何 NRA 认可的保险项目（即使是合法的），并同意支付数百万美元的罚款。

Held: The NRA plausibly alleged that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy. Pp. 8-20.
裁定：全国枪支协会合理地声称，被告强迫受监管实体终止与全国枪支协会的业务关系，以惩罚或压制枪支推广宣传，从而违反了第一修正案。第 8-20 页。8-20.

(a) At the heart of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.
(a) 第一修正案言论自由条款的核心是承认观点歧视对自由民主社会具有独特的危害性。
When government officials are "engaging in their own expressive conduct," though, "the Free Speech Clause has no application." Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467.
不过，当政府官员 "从事自己的表达行为 "时，"自由言论条款并不适用"。Pleasant Grove 市诉 Summum 案，555 U. S. 460, 467。
"When a government entity embarks on a course of action, it necessarily takes a particular viewpoint and rejects others," and thus does not need to "maintain viewpoint-neutrality when its officers and employees speak about that venture." Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. 218, 234.
"当一个政府实体开始一项行动时，它必然会采取一种特定的观点并拒绝其他观点，"因此，"当其官员和雇员谈论该行动时，不需要保持观点中立"。Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. 218, 234。
While a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression.
虽然政府官员可以自由分享自己的观点，批评特定的信仰以说服他人，但她不得利用职权惩罚或压制不受欢迎的言论。

In Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, this Court explored
在 Bantam Books, Inc. 诉沙利文案（372 U. S. 58）中，法院探讨了

the distinction between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce. The Court explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . .
允许的试图说服与不允许的试图胁迫之间的区别。法院解释说，第一修正案禁止政府官员依靠 "援引法律制裁的威胁和其他胁迫手段......"。
to achieve the suppression" of disfavored speech. Id., at 67.
以达到压制 "不受欢迎的言论的目的。同上，第 67 页。
Although the defendant in Bantam Books, a state commission that blacklisted certain publications, lacked the "power to apply formal legal sanctions," the coerced party "reasonably understood" the commission to threaten adverse action, and thus its "compliance with the [c]ommission's directives was not voluntary." Id., at 66-68.
虽然 Bantam Books 案中的被告--将某些出版物列入黑名单的州委员会--没有 "实施正式法律制裁的权力"，但被胁迫的一方 "合理地理解 "该委员会威胁要采取不利行动，因此其 "遵守委员会的指令并非出于自愿"。同上，第 66-68 页。
To reach this conclusion, the Court considered things like: the commission's authority; the commission's communications; and the coerced party's reaction to the communications. Id., at 68.
为得出这一结论，法院考虑了以下因素：委员会的权力；委员会的沟通；以及受胁迫方对沟通的反应。同上，第 68 页。
The Courts of Appeals have since considered similar factors to determine whether a challenged communication is reasonably understood to be a coercive threat.
此后，上诉法院考虑了类似的因素，以确定受质疑的通信是否被合理地理解为胁迫性威胁。
Ultimately, Bantam Books stands for the principle that a government official cannot directly or indirectly coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf. Pp. 8-11.
最终，Bantam Books 代表的原则是，政府官员不得直接或间接胁迫私人代表其惩罚或压制不受欢迎的言论。Pp.8-11.

(b) To state a claim that the government violated the First Amendment through coercion of a third party, a plaintiff must plausibly allege conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress speech.
(b) 若要声称政府通过胁迫第三方违反了《第一修正案》，原告必须貌似合理地指控，从上下文来看，该行为可被合理地理解为传达了政府为惩罚或压制言论而采取不利行动的威胁。
See Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at 67-68. Here, the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities into disassociating with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy.
参见 Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at 67-68。在此，全国枪支协会合理地声称，Vullo 违反了第一修正案，胁迫受 DFS 监管的实体与全国枪支协会脱离关系，以惩罚或压制枪支推广宣传。

As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York.
作为金融服务部总监，武罗对所有在纽约开展业务的保险公司和金融服务机构拥有直接的监管和执法权。
She could initiate investigations, refer cases for prosecution, notice civil charges, and enter into consent decrees. Vullo's communications with the DFS-regulated entities, particularly with Lloyd's, must be considered against the backdrop of Vullo's authority.
她可以启动调查、将案件移交起诉、通知民事指控并达成同意法令。Vullo 与 DFS 监管实体的沟通，尤其是与劳合社的沟通，必须以 Vullo 的权力为背景来考虑。
Vullo made clear she wanted Lloyd's to disassociate from all gun groups, although there was no indication that such groups had unlawful insurance policies similar to the NRA's.
Vullo 明确表示，她希望劳合社与所有枪支组织脱离关系，尽管没有迹象表明这些组织有类似于全国枪支协会的非法保险政策。
Vullo also told the Lloyd's executives she would "focus" her enforcement actions "solely" on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, "and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies." App. to Pet. for Cert. 223, Ф69.
Vullo 还告诉劳合社的高管，她将 "只 "对与 NRA 有联系的辛迪加采取 "重点 "执法行动，"而不理会其他签订类似保单的辛迪加"。App.223, Ф69.
The message was loud and clear: Lloyd's "could avoid liability for [unrelated] infractions" if it "aided DFS's campaign against gun groups" by terminating its business relationships with them. Ibid.
这一信息响亮而明确：劳合社如果终止与 DFS 的业务关系，"就可以避免承担[无关的]违规责任"。同上。
As the reaction from Lloyd's further confirms, Vullo's alleged communications-whether seen as a threat or as an inducement-were reasonably understood as coercive. Other allegations concerning the Guidance
劳合社的反应进一步证实，Vullo 所称的沟通--无论被视为威胁还是引诱--都被合理地理解为胁迫。有关《指导意见》的其他指控

Letters and accompanying press release, viewed in context of their issuance, reinforce the NRA's First Amendment claim. Pp. 12-15.
从信件发布的背景来看，信件和随附的新闻稿强化了 NRA 的第一修正案主张。Pp.12-15.

(c) The Second Circuit concluded that Vullo's alleged communications were "examples of permissible government speech" and "legitimate enforcement action." 49 F. 4th 700, 717-719.
(c) 第二巡回法院的结论是，Vullo 所称的通信是 "政府允许的言论 "和 "合法的执法行动"。49 F. 4th 700, 717-719.
The Second Circuit could only reach this conclusion, however, by taking the complaint's allegations in isolation and failing to draw reasonable inferences in the NRA's favor.
然而，第二巡回法院只能得出这样的结论，因为它孤立地看待申诉的指控，没有做出对 NRA 有利的合理推论。

Vullo's arguments to the contrary lack merit. The conceded illegality of the NRA-endorsed insurance programs does not insulate Vullo from First Amendment scrutiny under Bantam Books.
Vullo 的相反论点缺乏依据。Vullo 承认 NRA 认可的保险计划是非法的，但这并不能使 Vullo 免受 Bantam Books 第一修正案的审查。
Nor does her argument that her actions targeted "nonexpressive" business relationships change the fact that the NRA alleges her actions were aimed at punishing or suppressing speech.
她辩称自己的行为针对的是 "非表达性 "商业关系，但这并不能改变 NRA 指控她的行为旨在惩罚或压制言论的事实。
Finally, Vullo claims that the NRA's position, if accepted, would stifle government speech and hamper legitimate enforcement efforts, but the Court's conclusion simply reaffirms the general principle that where, as here, the complaint plausibly alleges coercive threats aimed at punishing or suppressing disfavored speech, the plaintiff states a First Amendment claim.
最后，Vullo 声称，如果接受全美枪支协会的立场，就会扼杀政府的言论并妨碍合法的执法工作，但法院的结论只是重申了一般原则，即如果像这里一样，原告合理地指控了旨在惩罚或压制不受欢迎的言论的胁迫性威胁，那么原告就提出了第一修正案的申诉。
Pp. .

(d) The NRA's allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted.
(d) 全美枪支协会的指控如果属实，则凸显了对武尔洛据称采取的那种策略的宪法关切。
Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA's business partners.
尽管全国枪支协会在此案中并非直接受监管方，但据称武罗利用其办公室的权力，通过打击全国枪支协会的商业伙伴来进行枪支推广。
Nothing in this case immunizes the NRA from regulation nor prevents government officials from condemning disfavored views.
本案中没有任何内容使全国步枪协会免受监管，也没有任何内容阻止政府官员谴责不受欢迎的观点。
The takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries. P. 19 .
由此得出的结论是，第一修正案禁止政府官员有选择性地行使权力，直接或（如此处所称）通过私人中介机构惩罚或压制言论。P. 19 .

. 4th 700, vacated and remanded.
.4th 700，撤销并发回重审。

Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GorSUCH, J., and JACKsON, J., each filed a concurring opinion.
大法官索托马约尔代表法院一致发表了意见。大法官戈尔苏奇和大法官杰克逊分别提出了赞同意见。
Opinion of the Court
法院意见

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543 , pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
注意：本意见书在《美国案例汇编》上发表前须经正式修订。请读者将任何排印错误或其他正式错误通知美国最高法院判决报告员（Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543 , pio@supremecourt.gov）。

[May 30, 2024]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
索托马约尔大法官发表了法院意见。

Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity's "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion" against a third party "to achieve the suppression" of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S.
六十年前，本法院认为，政府实体对第三方 "威胁援引法律制裁和其他胁迫手段 "以 "压制 "不受欢迎的言论，违反了第一修正案。Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S.
58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.
58, 67 (1963).今天，法院重申了它当时所说的话：政府官员不能为了惩罚或压制政府不赞成的观点而试图胁迫私人当事方。
Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.
请愿人全国步枪协会（NRA）似是而非地声称，被告 Maria Vullo 就是这样做的。
As superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Vullo allegedly pressured regulated entities to help her stifle the NRA's pro-gun advocacy by threatening enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups.
据称，作为纽约金融服务部的主管，武罗向受监管实体施压，要求它们帮助她扼杀全国枪支协会的拥枪主张，并威胁要对那些拒绝与全国枪支协会和其他拥枪主张团体脱离关系的实体采取执法行动。
Those allegations, if true, state a First Amendment claim.
这些指控如果属实，则提出了第一修正案的申诉。

I

A

Because this case comes to us at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court assumes the truth of "well-pleaded factual
由于本案是在动议驳回阶段提交给我们的，因此法院假定 "有据可查的事实 "是真实的。

Opinion of the Court
法院意见

allegations" and "reasonable inference[s]" therefrom. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678-679 (2009). Unless stated otherwise, the allegations aver as follows:
指控 "及其 "合理推论"。Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678-679 (2009)。除非另有说明，否则指控如下：

The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) oversees insurance companies and financial services institutions doing business in the State. See N. Y. Fin. Servs. Law Ann. §201(a) (West 2012).
纽约金融服务部 (DFS) 负责监督在纽约州开展业务的保险公司和金融服务机构。参见 N. Y. Fin.Servs.Law Ann.§201(a)（West 2012）。
DFS can initiate investigations and civil enforcement actions against regulated entities, and can refer potential criminal violations to the State's attorney general for prosecution. §§301(b), (c)(4).
DFS 可对受监管实体发起调查和民事执法行动，并可将潜在的刑事违规行为提交州检察长起诉。§§301(b),(c)(4)。
The DFS-regulated entities in this case are insurers that had business relationships with the NRA.
本案中受外勤部监管的实体是与 NRA 有业务关系的保险公司。

Since 2000, the NRA has offered a variety of insurance programs as a benefit to its members.
自 2000 年以来，NRA 为其会员提供了各种保险计划。
The NRA contracted with affiliates of Lockton Companies, LLC (Lockton), to administer the various policies of these affinity insurance programs, which Chubb Limited (Chubb) and Lloyd's of London (Lloyd's) would then underwrite.
NRA 与 Lockton Companies, LLC（洛克顿公司）的附属公司签订合同，管理这些亲缘保险计划的各种保单，然后由 Chubb Limited（丘博公司）和 Lloyd's of London（劳埃德公司）承保。
In return, the NRA received a percentage of its members' premium payments.
作为回报，全国保险协会从其会员的保险费中收取一定比例的费用。
One of the NRA's affinity products, Carry Guard, covered personal-injury and criminal-defense costs related to licensed firearm use, and "insured New York residents for intentional, reckless, and criminally negligent acts with a firearm that injured or killed another person." 49 F.
NRA 的亲和产品之一 Carry Guard 承保与持证使用枪支有关的人身伤害和刑事辩护费用，"为纽约居民使用枪支造成他人受伤或死亡的故意、鲁莽和刑事过失行为提供保险"。49 F.
4th 700,707 (CA2 2022).
4th 700,707 (CA2 2022)。

In September 2017, a gun-control advocacy group contacted the New York County District Attorney's office to tip them off to "compliance infirmities in Carry Guard." App. to Pet. for Cert. 206, Second Amended Complaint 934 . That office then passed on the allegations to DFS.
2017 年 9 月，一个枪支管制倡导组织联系了纽约县地方检察官办公室，向他们举报 "Carry Guard 在合规性方面存在缺陷"。App. to Pet.206, Second Amended Complaint 934 .该办公室随后将指控转给了 DFS。
The next month, then-Superintendent of DFS Vullo began investigating Carry Guard, focusing on Chubb and Lockton.
第二个月，时任 DFS 总监 Vullo 开始调查 Carry Guard，重点是 Chubb 和 Lockton。
The investigation revealed at least two kinds of violations of New York law: that Carry Guard insured intentional criminal acts, and the NRA promoted Carry Guard without an
调查显示，至少有两类行为违反了纽约法律：Carry Guard 为故意犯罪行为投保，而 NRA 在推广 Carry Guard 时没有获得纽约州法律的批准。

Opinion of the Court
法院意见

insurance producer license. By mid-November, upon finding out about the investigation following DFS information requests, Lockton and Chubb suspended Carry Guard.
保险经纪人执照。到 11 月中旬，洛克顿和丘博在收到 DFS 的信息请求后发现了调查情况，于是暂停了 Carry Guard 的执照。
Vullo then expanded her investigation into the NRA's other affinity insurance programs, many of which were underwritten by Lloyd's and administered by Lockton. These NRA-endorsed programs provided similar coverage and suffered from the same legal infirmities.
Vullo 随后将调查范围扩大到 NRA 的其他亲和保险计划，其中许多计划由劳埃德承保，由洛克顿管理。这些由 NRA 认可的项目提供类似的保险，也存在同样的法律缺陷。

In the midst of the investigation, tragedy struck Parkland, Florida. On February 14, 2018, a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, murdering 17 students and staff members.
就在调查期间，悲剧发生在佛罗里达州帕克兰。2018 年 2 月 14 日，一名枪手在马乔里-斯通曼-道格拉斯高中开枪，杀害了 17 名学生和教职员工。
Following the shooting, the NRA and other gun-advocacy groups experienced "intense backlash" across the country. 49 F. 4th, at 708. Major business institutions, including DFS-regulated entities, spoke out against the NRA, and some even cut ties with the organization. App.
枪击案发生后，全国枪支协会和其他拥枪团体在全国范围内遭遇了 "强烈反弹"。49 F. 4th, at 708.包括 DFS 监管实体在内的主要商业机构都公开反对全国枪支协会，一些机构甚至切断了与该组织的联系。App.
to Pet. for Cert. 244. MetLife, for example, ended a discount program it offered with the NRA.
to Pet. for Cert.244.例如，大都会人寿（MetLife）终止了与全国枪支协会（NRA）合作提供的折扣计划。
On February 25, 2018, Lockton's chairman "placed a distraught telephone call to the NRA," in which he privately shared that Lockton would sever all ties with the NRA to avoid "losing [its] license" to do business in New York." Id., at 298, Complaint 942 .
2018 年 2 月 25 日，洛克顿公司董事长 "心急如焚地给全国步枪协会打了一通电话"，私下透露洛克顿公司将切断与全国步枪协会的所有联系，以避免 "失去[其]"在纽约开展业务的 "执照""。同上，第 298 页，投诉 942。
Lockton publicly announced its decision the next day. Following Lockton's decision, the NRA's corporate insurance carrier also severed ties with the organization and refused to renew coverage at any price.
洛克顿公司第二天公开宣布了这一决定。洛克顿公司做出决定后，全国步枪协会的企业保险公司也断绝了与该组织的联系，并拒绝以任何价格续保。
The NRA contends that Lockton and the corporate insurance carrier took these steps not because of the Parkland shooting but because they feared "reprisa[l]" from Vullo. Id., at 210, 『44; see id., at 209-210, ๆ|41-43.
全美枪支协会辩称，洛克顿公司和公司保险公司采取这些措施并非因为帕克兰枪击案，而是因为他们害怕来自 Vullo 的 "报复"。同上，第 210 页，『44；见同上，第 209-210 页，ๆ|41-43。

Around that time, Vullo also began to meet with executives at the insurance companies doing business with the NRA. On February 27, Vullo met with senior executives at Lloyd's.
大约在那个时候，武尔洛也开始会见与全国保险协会有业务往来的保险公司的高管。2 月 27 日，武尔洛会见了劳合社的高级管理人员。
There, speaking on behalf of DFS and then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, Vullo "presented [their] views on gun control and their desire to leverage their powers to combat
在那里，武洛代表外勤部和时任州长安德鲁-科莫（Andrew Cuomo）发言，"介绍了[他们]对枪支管制的看法，以及他们利用职权打击枪支的愿望"。

Opinion of the Court
法院意见

the availability of firearms, including specifically by weakening the NRA." Id., at . She also "discussed an array of technical regulatory infractions plaguing the affinityinsurance marketplace” in New York. Id., at 199, 『|21.
枪支供应，特别是削弱全国枪支协会"。同上， 。她还 "讨论了困扰纽约亲和保险市场的一系列技术性违规行为"。同上，第 199 页，第 21 段。
Vullo told the Lloyd's executives "that DFS was less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions" unrelated to any NRA business "so long as Lloyd's ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.” Id., at 199-200, 『21; accord,
Vullo 告诉劳合社的高管，"只要劳合社停止向枪支组织，尤其是全国枪支协会提供保险，那么 DFS 对追究与任何全国枪支协会业务无关的违规行为的兴趣就会减弱"。Id., at 199-200, 『21; accord、

that it "could avoid liability for infractions relating to other, similarly situated insurance policies, so long as it aided DFS's campaign against gun groups"). Vullo and Lloyd's struck a deal: Lloyd's “would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business," and "in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming affinity-insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA, and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies." Ibid., ๆ69.
Vullo 和劳合社达成了协议：劳合社 "只要协助 DFS 开展反对枪支组织的活动，就可以避免承担与其他类似保险单有关的违规责任"。） Vullo 和劳合社达成了协议：劳合社 "将指示其辛迪加停止承保与枪支相关的保单，并将缩减与 NRA 相关的业务"，而 "作为交换，DFS 将把其即将开展的亲和保险执法行动的重点仅仅放在那些为 NRA 服务的辛迪加上，而忽略其他承保类似保单的辛迪加"。同上，ๆ69。

On April 19, 2018, Vullo issued two virtually identical guidance letters on DFS letterhead entitled, "Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations." Id., at 246-251 (Guidance Letters).
2018 年 4 月 19 日，Vullo 用 DFS 的信笺签发了两封几乎相同的指导信，题为 "与全国枪支协会和类似枪支推广组织有关的风险管理指导"。同上，第 246-251 页（指导信）。
Vullo sent one of the letters to insurance companies and the other to financial services institutions.
Vullo 将其中一封寄给了保险公司，另一封寄给了金融服务机构。
In the letters, Vullo pointed to the "social backlash" against the NRA and other groups "that promote guns that lead to senseless violence" following "several recent horrific shootings, including in Parkland, Florida." Id., at 246, 249.
Vullo 在信中指出，在 "包括佛罗里达州帕克兰在内的最近几起骇人听闻的枪击事件 "发生后，"社会 "对 "鼓吹枪支导致无谓暴力的 "全国步枪协会和其他团体产生了 "反弹"。同上，第 246 和 249 页。
Vullo then cited recent instances of businesses severing their ties with the NRA as examples of companies "fulfilling their corporate social responsibility." Id., at 247,250 .
Vullo 随后列举了最近一些企业断绝与 NRA 关系的事例，作为公司 "履行企业社会责任 "的例证。同上，第 247,250 页。
Opinion of the Court
法院意见

In the Guidance Letters' final paragraph, Vullo "encourage[d]" DFS-regulated entities to: (1) "continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations"; (2) "review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations"; and (3) "take prompt actions to manag[e] these risks and promote public health and safety." Id., at 248,
在《指导信函》的最后一段中，武罗 "鼓励 "受外勤部监管的实体(1) "继续评估和管理因与全国枪支协会或类似枪支推广组织打交道而可能产生的风险，包括声誉风险"；(2) "审查与全国枪支协会或类似枪支推广组织的任何关系"；(3) "迅速采取行动管理这些风险，促进公众健康和安全"。同上，第 248 页、

The same day that DFS issued the Guidance Letters, Vullo and Governor Cuomo issued a joint press release that echoed many of the letters' statements.
在外勤部发布《指导信函》的同一天，武罗和州长科莫发布了一份联合新闻稿，对信函中的许多表述表示赞同。
The press release included a quote from Vullo "'urg[ing] all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York'" to join those "that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.'" Id., at 244.
新闻稿中引用了 Vullo 的一段话，"'敦促'所有在纽约开展业务的保险公司和银行''加入那些'已经终止与 NRA 安排的公司和银行的行列'"。同上，第 244 页。
The press release cited Chubb's decision to stop underwriting Carry Guard as an example to emulate. The next day, Cuomo tweeted: "The NRA is an extremist organization.
新闻稿将 Chubb 停止承保 Carry Guard 的决定作为效仿的榜样。第二天，科莫在推特上写道"全国枪支协会是一个极端组织。
I urge companies in New York State to revisit any ties they have to the NRA and consider their reputations, and responsibility to the public.'" Id., at 213, Complaint 951 .
我敦促纽约州的公司重新审视他们与全国枪支协会的任何联系，并考虑他们的声誉和对公众的责任'"。同上，第 213 页，投诉 951。

Less than two weeks after the Guidance Letters and press release went out, DFS entered into consent decrees with Lockton (on May 2), and Chubb (on May 7). The decrees stipulated that Carry Guard violated New York insur-
在《指导函》和新闻稿发布后不到两周，金融服务部与 Lockton（5 月 2 日）和 Chubb（5 月 7 日）签订了同意令。这两项法令规定 Carry Guard 违反了纽约州保险法。

Opinion of the Court
法院意见

ance law because it provided insurance coverage for intentional criminal acts, and because the NRA promoted Carry Guard, along with other NRA-endorsed programs, without an insurance producer license. The decrees also listed other infractions of the State's insurance law.
因为该公司为故意犯罪行为提供保险，而且全国步枪协会在没有保险生产商执照的情况下推广 Carry Guard 以及其他由全国步枪协会认可的项目。法令还列举了其他违反州保险法的行为。
Both Lockton and Chubb admitted liability, agreed not to provide any NRAendorsed insurance programs (even if lawful) but were permitted to sell corporate insurance to the NRA, and agreed to pay fines of million and million respectively. On May 9, Lloyd's officially instructed its syndicates to terminate existing agreements with the NRA and not to insure new ones. It publicly announced its decision to cut ties with the NRA that same day.
洛克顿和丘博都承认了责任，同意不提供任何 NRA 认可的保险项目（即使是合法的），但允许向 NRA 出售公司保险，并同意分别支付 万和 万的罚款。5 月 9 日，劳合社正式指示其辛迪加终止与 NRA 的现有协议，不再承保新的协议。劳合社当天公开宣布了与全国保险协会断绝关系的决定。
On December 20, 2018, DFS and Lloyd's entered into their own consent decree, which imposed similar terms and a million fine.
2018 年 12 月 20 日，DFS 和劳合社签署了自己的同意令，其中规定了类似的条款和 万的罚款。

B

The NRA sued Cuomo, Vullo, and DFS.
全国枪支协会起诉了科莫、武洛和外勤部。
The only claims before the Court today are those against Vullo-namely, claims that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated parties to punish or suppress "the NRA's pro-Second Amendment viewpoint" and "core political speech." Id., at . The complaint asserts both censorship and retaliation First Amendment claims, which the parties and lower courts have analyzed together.
法院今天审理的唯一诉求是针对 Vullo 的诉求--即 Vullo 违反了第一修正案，强迫受 DFS 监管的各方惩罚或压制 "全国步枪协会支持第二修正案的观点 "和 "核心政治言论"。同上， 。诉状同时主张审查和报复第一修正案，双方和下级法院对这两项诉求进行了综合分析。
Vullo moved to dismiss, arguing that the alleged conduct did not constitute impermissible coercion and that, in the alternative, she was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established law.
Vullo 提出了驳回诉讼的动议，辩称所指控的行为并不构成不允许的胁迫，另外，她有权获得合格豁免，因为她并没有违反明确规定的法律。

The District Court denied Vullo's motion to dismiss the NRA's First-Amendment damages claims. The court held that the NRA plausibly alleged that "the combination of [Vullo's and Cuomo's] actions . . .
地区法院驳回了 Vullo 提出的驳回 NRA 的第一修正案损害赔偿要求的动议。法院认为，NRA 似是而非地声称"[Vullo 和 Cuomo 的]行为........ .
could be interpreted as a veiled threat to regulated industries to disassociate with the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action." NRA of Am. v. Cuomo, 525 F. Supp. 3d 382, 402-403 (NDNY 2021). That
可被解释为对受监管行业的隐晦威胁，要求其与全国枪支协会脱离关系，否则将面临外勤部执法行动的风险"。NRA of Am. v. Cuomo, 525 F. Supp. 3d 382, 402-403 (NDNY 2021)。这
threat, the court said, crossed a First Amendment line. The District Court concluded that Vullo was not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
法院说，这种威胁越过了第一修正案的底线。地区法院的结论是，在动议驳回阶段，Vullo 无权享有合格豁免权。

The Second Circuit reversed. It concluded that Vullo's alleged actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement, and not unconstitutional coercion.
第二巡回法院推翻了这一判决。第二巡回法院的结论是，Vullo 被指控的行为构成了允许的政府言论和合法执法，而不是违宪的胁迫。
The Second Circuit determined that the Guidance Letters and accompanying press release were not unconstitutionally coercive because they "were written in an evenhanded, nonthreatening tone and employed words intended to persuade rather than intimidate." 49 F. 4th, at 717.
第二巡回法院认定，《指导信》和随附的新闻稿并不具有违宪的胁迫性，因为它们 "是以一种平和、非威胁性的语气撰写的，并且使用了旨在说服而非恐吓的措辞"。49 F. 4th, at 717.
The court found it significant that Vullo "did not refer to any pending investigations or possible regulatory action" and alluded only to business-related risks "amid growing public concern over gun violence." Ibid.
法院认为，重要的是，Vullo "没有提及任何未决调查或可能的监管行动"，只是暗指 "在公众日益关注枪支暴力的情况下 "与业务相关的风险。同上。
As for Vullo's meeting with the Lloyd's executives, the court admitted that the allegations presented a "closer call." Id., at 718. Nonetheless, just as with the consent decrees, it found that Vullo "was merely carrying out her regulatory responsibilities." Id., at 718-719.
至于 Vullo 与劳合社高管的会面，法院承认这些指控 "更接近事实"。同上，第 718 页。尽管如此，与同意法令一样，法院认为 Vullo "只是在履行她的监管职责"。同上，第 718-719 页。
The Second Circuit also held that, even if the complaint stated a First Amendment violation, the law was not clearly established, and so Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity.
第二巡回法院还认为，即使控诉指出了违反《第一修正案》的行为，但该法律并未明确确立，因此 Vullo 有权享有合格豁免权。

The NRA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking either summary reversal or review of the First Amendment and qualified immunity holdings.
全国枪支协会提交了一份调卷令申请，要求即决推翻或复审第一修正案和合格豁免裁定。
This Court granted certiorari on only the first question presented whether the complaint states a First Amendment claim against Vullo. See 601 U. S. (2023).
本法院仅就申诉是否对 Vullo 提出了第一修正案索赔的第一个问题批准了提审。见 601 U. S. (2023)。

Opinion of the Court
法院意见

II

As discussed below, Vullo was free to criticize the NRA and pursue the conceded violations of New York insurance law.
如下文所述，Vullo 可以自由地批评 NRA，并追究公认的违反纽约保险法的行为。
She could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy.
但是，她不能利用自己的权力威胁对受外勤部监管的实体采取执法行动，以惩罚或压制全国枪支协会的枪支推广宣传。
Because the complaint plausibly alleges that Vullo did just that, the Court holds that the NRA stated a First Amendment violation.
由于诉状似是而非地指控 Vullo 正是这样做的，因此法院认为全国枪支协会陈述了违反《第一修正案》的行为。

A

At the heart of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.
第一修正案言论自由条款的核心是承认观点歧视对自由民主社会具有独特的危害性。
The Clause prohibits government entities and actors from "abridging the freedom of speech." When government officials are "engaging in their own expressive conduct," though, "the Free Speech Clause has no application." Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460,467 (2009).
该条款禁止政府实体和行为者 "限制言论自由"。但当政府官员 "从事自己的表达行为 "时，"自由言论条款并不适用"。Pleasant Grove 市诉 Summum，555 U. S. 460,467 (2009)。
The government can "say what it wishes'" and "select the views that it wants to express." Id., at 467-468 (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833 (1995)). That makes sense; the government could barely function otherwise.
政府可以 "说它想说的话"，并 "选择它想表达的观点"。同上，第 467-468 页（引用 Rosenberger 诉 Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833 (1995)）。这是有道理的；否则政府几乎无法运作。
"When a government entity embarks on a course of action, it necessarily takes a particular viewpoint and rejects others," and thus does not need to "maintain viewpoint-neutrality when its officers and employees speak about that venture." Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. 218, 234 (2017).
"当一个政府实体开始一项行动时，它必然会采取一种特定的观点并拒绝其他观点，"因此，"当其官员和雇员谈论该行动时，不需要保持观点中立"。Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. 218, 234 (2017)。

A government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, and she can do so forcefully in the
政府官员可以自由地分享她的观点，批评特定的信仰，而且她可以在以下场合强势地这样做

Second Circuit is free to revisit the qualified immunity question in light of this Court's opinion, the NRA still could obtain "effectual relief'" on remand. Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013).
第二巡回法院可根据本法院的意见重新审查合格豁免问题，NRA 在发回重审时仍可获得 "有效救济"。Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013)。
In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the resolution of the First Amendment question is merely advisory.
在这种情况下，不能说对第一修正案问题的解决仅仅是咨询性的。
hopes of persuading others to follow her lead. In doing so, she can rely on the merits and force of her ideas, the strength of her convictions, and her ability to inspire others.
希望说服他人跟随她的领导。在此过程中，她可以依靠自己思想的优点和力量、信念的力量以及激励他人的能力。
What she cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression. See Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 830 (explaining that governmental actions seeking to suppress a speaker's particular views are presumptively unconstitutional).
然而，她不能做的是利用国家权力来惩罚或压制不受欢迎的言论。见 Rosenberger，515 U.S.，第 830 页（解释了试图压制发言者特定观点的政府行为推定为违宪）。
In such cases, it is "the application of state power which we are asked to scrutinize." NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 463 (1958).
在此类案件中，"我们要审查的是州权力的运用"。NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 463 (1958)。

In Bantam Books, this Court explored the distinction between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce.
在 Bantam Books 一案中，法院探讨了可允许的试图说服与不可允许的试图胁迫之间的区别。
There, a state commission used its power to investigate and recommend criminal prosecution to censor publications that, in its view, were "objectionable'" because they threatened "youthful morals." 372 U. S., at 59-62, 71.
在该案中，一个州委员会利用其调查和建议刑事起诉的权力审查其认为 "令人反感 "的出版物，因为这些出版物威胁到 "青少年的道德"。372 U. S., at 59-62, 71.
The commission sent official notices to a distributor for blacklisted publications that highlighted the commission's "duty to recommend to the Attorney General" violations of the State's obscenity laws. Id., at 62-63, and n. 5.
委员会向被列入黑名单的出版物发行商发出正式通知，强调委员会 "有责任向总检察长建议 "违反本州淫秽法律的行为。同上，第 62-63 页及注 5。
The notices also informed the distributor that the lists of blacklisted publications "were circulated to local police departments," and that the distributor's cooperation in removing the publications from the shelves would "eliminate the necessity'" of any referral for prosecution.
通知还告知发行商，黑名单上的出版物 "已分发给当地警察部门"，如果发行商合作将这些出版物下架，就 "没有必要 "移交起诉。
Ibid. A local police officer also conducted followup visits to ensure compliance. In response, the distributor took "steps to stop further circulation of copies of the listed publications" out of fear of facing "'a court action.'" Id., at 63.
同上。一名当地警官还进行了后续访问，以确保遵守规定。作为回应，该发行商采取了 "措施，停止进一步发行所列出版物"，因为害怕"'法庭诉讼'"。同上，第 63 页。

The publishers of the blacklisted publications sued the commission, alleging that this scheme of informal censorship violated their First Amendment rights. The commission responded that "it not regulate or suppress obscenity but simply exhort[ed] booksellers and advise[d] them of their legal rights." Id., at 66. This Court sided with
被列入黑名单的出版物的出版商对委员会提起诉讼，声称这种非正式的审查制度侵犯了他们的第一修正案权利。该委员会回应说，"它 并非管制或禁止淫秽，而只是劝诫书商并告知他们的合法权利"。同上，第 66 页。法院支持
the publishers, holding that the commission violated their free-speech rights by coercing the distributor to stop selling and displaying the listed publications.
他们认为，委员会强迫发行商停止销售和展示所列出版物，侵犯了他们的言论自由权。

The Court explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression" of disfavored speech. Id., at 67.
法院解释说，第一修正案禁止政府官员依靠 "威胁援引法律制裁和其他胁迫手段......来压制 "不受欢迎的言论。同上，第 67 页。
Although the commission lacked the "power to apply formal legal sanctions," the distributor "reasonably understood" the commission to threaten adverse action, and thus the distributor's "compliance with the [c]ommission's directives was not voluntary." Id., at 66-68.
虽然委员会没有 "实施正式法律制裁的权力"，但分销商 "合理地理解 "委员会威胁要采取不利行动，因此分销商 "遵守委员会的指令并非出于自愿"。同上，第 66-68 页。
To reach this conclusion, the Court considered things like: the commission's coordination with law enforcement and its authority to refer matters for prosecution; the notices themselves, which were "phrased virtually as orders" containing "thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings" if the distributor did not come around; and the distributor's reaction to the notices and followup visits.
为了得出这一结论，法院考虑了以下因素：委员会与执法部门的协调及其将案件移交起诉的权力；通知本身，这些通知 "措辞几乎等同于命令"，其中包含 "含蓄地威胁说"，如果分销商不回心转意，就会提起刑事诉讼；以及分销商对通知和后续访问的反应。
Id., at 68 .

Since Bantam Books, the Courts of Appeals have considered similar factors to determine whether a challenged communication is reasonably understood to be a coercive threat. Take the decision below, for example.
自 Bantam Books 案以来，上诉法院也考虑了类似的因素，以确定受质疑的通信是否被合理地理解为胁迫性威胁。以下面的判决为例。
The Second Circuit purported to consider: "(1) word choice and tone; (2) the existence of regulatory authority; (3) whether the speech was perceived as a threat; and, perhaps most importantly, (4) whether the speech refers to adverse consequences." 49 F.
第二巡回法院声称要考虑"(1)用词和语气；(2)是否存在监管机构；(3)言论是否被视为威胁；以及，也许最重要的是，(4)言论是否提及不利后果"。49 F.
4 th, at 715 (citations omitted). Other Circuits have taken similarly fact-intensive approaches, utilizing a multifactor test or a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. See, e.g., Missouri v. Biden, 83 F.
4 th, at 715（引文省略）。 其他巡回法院也采取了类似的事实密集型方法，利用多因素测试或整体情况分析。例如，见密苏里州诉拜登案，83 F. M. Biden，第 715 页（引述如前）。
4th 350, 380 (CA5 2023) ("[T]o help distinguish permissible persuasion from impermissible coercion, we turn to the Second (and Ninth) Circuit's four-factor test"); Kennedy v. Warren, 66 F.
4th 350, 380 (CA5 2023)（"为帮助区分允许的说服和不允许的胁迫，我们参考了第二（和第九）巡回审判庭的四要素测试"）；肯尼迪诉沃伦案，66 F. M. Kennedy v. Warren (CA5 2023)（"为帮助区分允许的说服和不允许的胁迫，我们参考了第二（和第九）巡回审判庭的四要素测试"）。
4th 1199, 1207 (CA9 2023) (applying the Second Circuit's "useful non-exclusive four-factor framework"); Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F. 3d 229, 230-232 (CA7 2015) (considering the same factors as part of a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis); R. C. Maxwell Co. v. New Hope, 735 F. 2d 85, 88 (CA3 1984) (same). The Courts of Appeals that employ a multifactor test agree that " one factor is dispositive." 49 F. 4th, at 715; accord, Kennedy, 66 F. 4th, at 1210 (explaining that the absence of direct regulatory authority is not dispositive).
4th 1199, 1207 (CA9 2023)（适用第二巡回法院的 "有用的非排他性四因素框架"）；Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F. 3d 229, 230-232 (CA7 2015)（考虑相同因素作为整体情况分析的一部分）；R. C. Maxwell Co. v. New Hope, 735 F. 2d 85, 88 (CA3 1984)（相同）。采用多因素测试法的上诉法院一致认为，" 一个因素是决定性的"。49 F. 4th, at 715; accord, Kennedy, 66 F. 4th, at 1210 (explaining that the absence of direct regulatory authority is not dispositive).

Ultimately, Bantam Books stands for the principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf. See, e.g., 372 U.
归根结底，Bantam Books 代表的原则是，政府官员不能间接地做她被禁止直接做的事情：政府官员不能强迫私人代表以她的名义惩罚或压制不受欢迎的言论。参见，例如，372 U.
S., at 67-69; see also Backpage.com, 807 F. 3d, at 231 (holding that the First Amendment barred a sheriff from "using the power of his office to threaten legal sanctions against . . . credit-card companies for facilitating future speech"); Okwedy v. Molinari, 333 F.
S., at 67-69; see also Backpage.com, 807 F. 3d, at 231 (holding that First Amendment barred a sheriff from "using the power of his office to threaten legal sanctions against ... credit-card companies for facilitating future speech"); Okwedy v. Molinari, 333 F.
3d 339, 344 (CA2 2003) (per curiam) (holding that a religious group stated a First Amendment claim against a borough president who wrote a letter "contain[ing] an implicit threat of retaliation" against a billboard company displaying the group's disfavored message); cf.
3d 339, 344 (CA2 2003)（per curiam）（认为一个宗教团体对一个区长提出了第一修正案索赔，因为该区长写了一封信，"暗含威胁要报复 "一个展示该团体所不喜欢的信息的广告牌公司）；参看.
Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Meese, 939 F. 2d, 1011, 1016 (CADC 1991) (“[W]hen the government threatens no sanction-criminal or otherwise-we very much doubt that the government's criticism or effort to embarrass the [intermediary] threatens anyone's First Amendment rights").
Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Meese, 939 F. 2d, 1011, 1016 (CADC 1991)（"当政府不威胁任何制裁--刑事或其他--时，我们非常怀疑政府的批评或使[中介]难堪的努力会威胁到任何人的第一修正案权利"）。

Opinion of the Court
法院意见

B

The parties and the Solicitor General, who filed an amicus brief supporting vacatur, agree that Bantam Books provides the right analytical framework for claims that the government has coerced a third party to violate the First Amendment rights of another.
双方当事人和提交法庭之友书状支持撤销判决的副检察长一致认为，班塔姆图书公司（Bantam Books）为政府胁迫第三方侵犯他人第一修正案权利的主张提供了正确的分析框架。
They also embrace the lower courts' multifactor test as a useful, though nonexhaustive, guide. Rightly so.
他们还将下级法院的多因素检验标准视为有用的指南，尽管并非详尽无遗。这是正确的。
Considerations like who said what and how, and what reaction followed, are just helpful guideposts in answering the question whether an official seeks to persuade or, instead, to coerce. Where the parties differ is on the application of the Bantam Books framework.
谁说了什么，怎么说的，之后有什么反应，这些考虑因素只是回答官员是在试图说服还是在试图胁迫这一问题时的有益指针。双方的分歧在于如何应用 Bantam Books 框架。
The NRA and the Solicitor General reject the Second Circuit's application of the framework, while Vullo defends it. The Court now agrees with the NRA and the Solicitor General.
NRA 和副检察长拒绝接受第二巡回法院对该框架的适用，而 Vullo 则为其辩护。法院现在同意 NRA 和副检察长的观点。

To state a claim that the government violated the First Amendment through coercion of a third party, a plaintiff must plausibly allege conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff's speech.
要声称政府通过胁迫第三方违反了《第一修正案》，原告必须合理地指控，从上下文来看，可以合理地理解为政府为了惩罚或压制原告的言论而威胁采取不利行动的行为。
See 372 U. S., at 67-68.
见 372 U.S.，第 67-68 页。
Accepting the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities into disassociating with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy.
如果接受申诉中充分陈述的事实指控为真，那么全美枪支协会有理由声称，Vullo 违反了第一修正案，因为他胁迫受 DFS 监管的实体与全美枪支协会脱离关系，以惩罚或压制全美枪支协会的枪支推广宣传。

Consider first Vullo's authority, which serves as a backdrop to the NRA's allegations of coercion.
首先考虑 Vullo 的权限，它是 NRA 指控胁迫的背景。
The power that a government official wields, while certainly not dispositive, is relevant to the objective inquiry of whether a reasonable person would perceive the official's communication as coercive. See id., at 66-67.
政府官员所拥有的权力固然不是决定性的，但与客观调查一个合理的人是否会认为该官员的交流具有胁迫性有关。参见同上，第 66-67 页。
Generally speaking, the greater and more direct the government official's authority, the less likely a person will feel free to disregard a directive from the official. For example, imagine a local affinity group in New York that receives a strongly worded letter. One
一般来说，政府官员的权力越大、越直接，人们就越不可能随意无视官员的指令。例如，设想纽约当地的一个亲和团体收到了一封措辞强硬的信。一个
would reasonably expect that organization to react differently if the letter came from, say, the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York than if it came from an outof-state school board.
如果这封信来自纽约南区联邦检察官，与来自外州的学校董事会，该组织的反应会有所不同。

As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York. See N. Y. Fin. Servs. Law Ann. . Just like the commission in Bantam Books, Vullo could initiate investigations and refer cases for prosecution. Indeed, she could do much more than that.
作为金融服务部总监，Vullo 对在纽约开展业务的所有保险公司和金融服务机构拥有直接的监管和执法权。参见 N. Y. Fin.Servs. 。与 Bantam Books 案中的委员会一样，Vullo 可以启动调查并将案件移交起诉。事实上，她能做的远不止这些。
Vullo also had the power to notice civil charges and, as this case shows, enter into consent decrees that impose significant monetary penalties.
Vullo 还有权通知民事指控，并如本案所示，有权达成同意令，处以巨额罚款。

Against this backdrop, consider Vullo's communications with the DFS-regulated entities, particularly with Lloyd's. According to the NRA, Vullo brought a variety of insurancelaw violations to the Lloyd's executives' attention during a private meeting in February 2018.
在此背景下，考虑一下 Vullo 与 DFS 监管实体的沟通，特别是与劳合社的沟通。根据 NRA 的说法，Vullo 在 2018 年 2 月的一次私人会议上提请劳合社高管注意各种违反保险法的行为。
The violations included technical infractions that allegedly plagued the affinity insurance market in New York and that were unrelated to any NRA business. App. to Pet. for Cert. 199-200, Complaint ; accord, id., at 207-208, ; id., at 223,『69. Vullo allegedly said she would be "less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions . . . so long as Lloyd's ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA." Id., at 199-200, . Vullo therefore wanted Lloyd's to disassociate from all gun groups, although there was no indication that such groups had unlawful insurance policies similar to the NRA's.
违规行为包括据称困扰纽约亲和保险市场的技术性违规行为，且与任何 NRA 业务无关。199-200, Complaint ; accord, id.199-200，申诉书 ；同上，第 207-208 页， ；同上，第 223 页， 『69。据称，Vullo 说她 "对追究这些违规行为不那么感兴趣......只要劳埃德公司还在，她就会继续"。......只要劳合社停止向枪支组织，尤其是全国枪支协会提供保险"。同上，第 199-200 页， 。因此，Vullo 希望劳合社与所有枪支组织脱离关系，尽管没有迹象表明这些组织拥有与 NRA 类似的非法保险政策。
Vullo also told the Lloyd's executives she would "focus" her enforcement actions "solely" on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, "and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies." Id., at . The message was therefore loud and clear: Lloyd's "could avoid liability for [unrelated] infractions" if it "aided DFS's campaign against gun groups" by terminating its business relationships with them. Ibid.
Vullo 还告诉劳合社的高管，她将 "只 "对与 NRA 有联系的辛迪加采取 "重点 "执法行动，"而不会理会其他承保类似保单的辛迪加"。同上， 。因此，她传达的信息是响亮而明确的：劳合社如果终止与 DFS 的业务关系，"就可以避免承担[无关的]违规责任"。同上。

As alleged, Vullo's communications with Lloyd's can be reasonably understood as a threat or as an inducement. Either of those can be coercive.
根据指控，Vullo 与劳合社的沟通可以被合理地理解为威胁或引诱。其中任何一种都可能具有胁迫性。
As Vullo concedes, the "threat need not be explicit," Brief for Respondent 47, and as the Solicitor General explains, "[t]he Constitution does not distinguish between 'comply or I'll prosecute' and 'comply and I'll look the other way,'" Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18, n.
正如 Vullo 承认的那样，"威胁不必是明确的"，答辩人辩护状 47，而且正如副检察长解释的那样，"《宪法》并没有区分'不遵守就起诉'和'遵守我就睁一只眼闭一只眼'"，美国法庭之友辩护状 18，n.。
7.
So, whether analyzed as a threat or as an inducement, the conclusion is the same: Vullo allegedly coerced Lloyd's by saying she would ignore unrelated infractions and focus her enforcement efforts on NRA-related business alone, if Lloyd's ceased underwriting NRA policies and disassociated from gun-promotion groups.
因此，无论是作为威胁还是作为引诱来分析，结论都是一样的：武尔洛涉嫌胁迫劳埃德公司，称如果劳埃德公司停止承保 NRA 保单并与枪支推广组织脱离关系，她就会忽略无关的违规行为，并将执法工作重点仅放在与 NRA 相关的业务上。

The reaction from Lloyd's further confirms the communications' coercive nature. Cf. Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at 63, 68 (noting that the distributor's "reaction on receipt of a notice was to take steps to stop further circulation of copies of the listed publications").
劳埃德公司的反应进一步证实了通信的强制性质。参见 Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at 63, 68（注意到发行商 "在收到通知后的反应是采取措施停止进一步发行所列出版物"）。
At the meeting itself, Lloyd's "agreed that it would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business." App. to Pet. for Cert. 223, Complaint 969 .
在这次会议上，劳合社 "同意指示其辛迪加停止承保与枪支有关的保单，并减少与 NRA 有关的业务"。App. to Pet.223, Complaint 969 .
Minutes from a subsequent board of directors’ meeting reveal that Lloyd's thought "the DFS investigation had transformed the gun issue into 'a regulatory, legal[,] and compliance matter.'" 2 App. to Pet. for Cert. 29 (Sealed).
随后的董事会会议记录显示，劳合社认为 "外勤部的调查已将枪支问题转变为'监管、法律[]和合规问题'"。2 App.29 (Sealed).
That reaction is consistent with Lloyd's public announcement that it had directed its syndicates to "terminate all insurance related to the NRA and not to provide any insurance to the NRA in the future." App. to Pet. for Cert. 224, Complaint ; accord, id., at 306, (consent decree memorializing commitment not to underwrite, or participate in, NRA-endorsed programs).
这一反应与劳合社的公开声明是一致的，即劳合社已指示其辛迪加 "终止与 NRA 有关的所有保险，并且今后不再向 NRA 提供任何保险"。App. to Pet.224, Complaint ; accord, id., at 306, (consent decree memorializing commitment not to underwrite, or participate in, NRA-endorsed programs).

Other allegations, viewed in context, reinforce the NRA's First Amendment claim. Consider the April 2018 Guidance Letters and accompanying press release, which Vullo issued on official letterhead. Cf. Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at
从上下文来看，其他指控加强了 NRA 的第一修正案主张。考虑一下 2018 年 4 月的 "指导信函 "和随附的新闻稿，这些都是 Vullo 用官方信笺签发的。参见 Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at

61-63, and n. 5 (discussing notice issued in "official Commission stationery"). Just like in her meeting with the Lloyd's executives, here too Vullo singled out the NRA and other gun-promotion organizations as the targets of her call to action.
61-63, and n. 5 (discussing notice issued in "official Commission stationery").就像在与劳埃德公司高管的会面中一样，武尔洛在这里也将全国枪支协会和其他枪支推广组织作为她号召行动的目标。
This time, the Guidance Letters reminded DFSregulated entities of their obligation to consider their "reputational risks," and then tied that obligation to an encouragement for "prompt actio[n] to manag[e] these risks." App. to Pet. for Cert. 248, 251.
这一次，《指导函》提醒金融服务部监管的实体有义务考虑其 "声誉风险"，然后将这一义务与鼓励 "迅速采取行动管理这些风险 "联系起来。App. to Pet.248, 251.
Evocative of Vullo's private conversation with the Lloyd's executives a few weeks earlier, the press release revealed how to manage the risks by encouraging DFS-regulated entities to "'discontinu[e] their arrangements with the NRA,'" just like Chubb did when it stopped underwriting Carry Guard.
新闻稿透露了如何通过鼓励受 DFS 监管的实体"'中止'与 NRA 的安排 "来管理风险，就像 Chubb 停止承保 Carry Guard 时所做的那样。
App. to Pet. for Cert. 244. A follow-on tweet from Cuomo reaffirmed the message: Businesses in New York should "consider their reputations'" and "'revisit any ties they have to the NRA," which he called "'an extremist organization.'" Id., at 213, 951 .
App.244.科莫的后续推文重申了这一信息：纽约的企业应该 "考虑他们的声誉"，并"'重新审视他们与 NRA 的任何联系"，他称 NRA 为"'一个极端主义组织'"。同上，第 213 页，第 951 页。

In sum, the complaint, assessed as a whole, plausibly alleges that Vullo threatened to wield her power against those refusing to aid her campaign to punish the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy. If true, that violates the First Amendment.
总之，从整体上看，控诉合理地指控武罗威胁要对那些拒绝协助她的运动的人行使权力，以惩罚全国枪支协会的枪支推广宣传。如果属实，这违反了第一修正案。

In holding otherwise, the Second Circuit found that: (1) the "Guidance Letters and Press Release are clear examples of permissible government speech"; and (2) the Lloyd's meeting was "legitimate enforcement action" in which Vullo was "merely carrying out her regulatory responsibilities" by offering "leniency in the course of negotiating a resolution of the apparent insurance law violations." . 4th, at 717-719. The Second Circuit could only reach this conclusion by taking the allegations in isolation and failing to draw reasonable inferences in the NRA's favor in violation
而第二巡回法院则认为(1) "指导信和新闻稿是允许的政府言论的明显例子"；(2) 劳埃德会议是 "合法的执法行动"，Vullo "只是履行其监管职责"，"在协商解决明显违反保险法问题的过程中给予宽大处理"。 .第 4 页，第 717-719 段。第二巡回法院得出这一结论的唯一方法是孤立地看待指控，并且没有做出对 NRA 有利的合理推论，从而违反了以下规定
of this Court's precedents. Cf. Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 678-679; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 570 (2007).
本法院的判例。参见 Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 678-679；Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 570 (2007)。

For example, the Second Circuit failed to analyze the Guidance Letters and press release against the backdrop of other allegations in the complaint, including the Lloyd's meeting.
例如，第二巡回法院没有结合诉状中的其他指控（包括劳埃德会议）来分析指导信函和新闻稿。
Moreover, as discussed above, the complaint alleges that Vullo made a not-so-subtle, sanctions-backed threat to Lloyd's to cut all business ties with the NRA and other gun-promotion groups, although there was no sign that other gun groups also had unlawful insurance policies.
此外，如上文所述，投诉称 Vullo 在制裁的支持下向劳合社发出了不太含蓄的威胁，要求劳合社切断与全国枪支协会和其他枪支推广组织的所有业务联系，尽管没有迹象表明其他枪支组织也有非法保单。
See supra, at 13. It is also relevant that Vullo made this alleged threat in a meeting where she presented her "desire to leverage [her] powers to combat the availability of firearms, including specifically by weakening the NRA." App. to Pet. for Cert.
见上文第 13 页。同样相关的是，武尔洛是在一次会议上发出这一所谓威胁的，她在会上表示 "希望利用[她的]权力打击枪支供应，包括特别是通过削弱全国枪支协会"。App. to Pet.
221, Complaint 『67; id., at 223, 『69 (alleging Vullo hoped to enlist DFS-regulated entities in "aid[ing] DFS's campaign against gun groups").
221, Complaint 『67；同上，第 223 页， 『69（指控 Vullo 希望让受 DFS 监管的实体参与 "帮助 DFS 打击枪支组织的运动"）。
Given the obligation to draw reasonable inferences in the NRA's favor and consider the allegations as a whole, the Second Circuit erred in reading the complaint as involving only individual instances of "permissible government speech" and the execution of Vullo's "regulatory responsibilities." 49 F.
鉴于有义务做出对全国枪支协会有利的合理推论，并将指控视为一个整体，第二巡回法院错误地将申诉理解为仅涉及 "允许的政府言论 "的个别事例和 Vullo 履行 "监管职责 "的情况。49 F.
4th, at .

For the same reasons, this Court cannot simply credit Vullo's assertion that "pursuing conceded violations of the law," Brief for Respondent 29, is an "obvious alternative explanation'" for her actions that defeats the plausibility of any coercive threat raising First Amendment concerns, id., at 37,40 , 42 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.
出于同样的原因，本法院不能简单地相信武尔洛的说法，即 "追求自认的违法行为"，答辩人辩护状 29，是对她的行为的 "明显的替代解释'"，这种解释使任何引起第一修正案关切的胁迫性威胁的合理性不复存在，同上，第 37、40 和 42 页（引用 Iqbal, 556 U.D.）。
S., at 682). Of course, discovery in this case might show that the allegations of coercion are false, or that certain actions should be understood differently in light of newly disclosed evidence. At this stage, though, the Court must assume the well-pleaded
S.，第 682 页）。当然，本案中的证据披露可能会表明有关胁迫的指控是虚假的，或者根据新披露的证据，对某些行为应该有不同的理解。但在现阶段，法院必须假定有据可依的指控是正确的。
factual allegations in the complaint are true.
申诉中的事实指控属实。

Moreover, the conceded illegality of the NRA-endorsed insurance programs does not insulate Vullo from First Amendment scrutiny under the Bantam Books framework.
此外，在 Bantam Books 框架下，NRA 认可的保险计划的非法性并不能使 Vullo 免受第一修正案的审查。
Indeed, the commission in that case targeted the distribution and display of material that, in its view, violated the State's obscenity laws. Nothing in that case turned on the distributor's compliance with state law.
事实上，在该案中，委员会针对的是其认为违反州淫秽法律的材料的发行和展示。该案中没有任何内容涉及发行商是否遵守州法律。
On the contrary, Bantam Books held that the commission violated the First Amendment by invoking legal sanctions to suppress disfavored publications, some of which may or may not contain protected speech (i.e., nonobscene material). See 372 U. S., at 64,67 .
相反，Bantam Books 认为，委员会援引法律制裁来压制不受欢迎的出版物，违反了第一修正案，其中一些出版物可能包含也可能不包含受保护的言论（即非淫秽材料）。见 372 U. S., at 64,67 。
Here, too, although Vullo can pursue violations of state insurance law, she cannot do so in order to punish or suppress the NRA's protected expression.
在这里，尽管 Vullo 可以追究违反州保险法的行为，但她不能为了惩罚或压制 NRA 受保护的言论而这样做。
So, the contention that the NRA and the insurers violated New York law does not excuse Vullo from allegedly employing coercive threats to stifle gun-promotion advocacy.
因此，全美枪支协会和保险公司违反纽约法律的说法并不能成为 Vullo 涉嫌使用胁迫性威胁来扼杀枪支推广宣传的借口。

Vullo next argues that this case does not involve unconstitutional coercion because her challenged actions in fact targeted business practices and relationships, which qualify as "nonexpressive activity." Brief for Respondent 32. The argument is misplaced.
Vullo 接下来辩称，本案不涉及违宪的胁迫行为，因为她受到质疑的行为实际上针对的是商业行为和商业关系，这属于 "非表达活动"。答辩人辩护状 32。这一论点是错误的。
That Vullo "regulate[d]" business activities stemming from the NRA's "relationships with insurers and banks," ibid., does not change the allegations that her actions were aimed at punishing or suppressing speech.
同上，Vullo "监管 "全国步枪协会 "与保险公司和银行的关系 "所产生的商业活动，但这并不能改变她的行为旨在惩罚或压制言论的指控。
In Bantam Books, the commission interfered with the business relationship between the distributor and the publishers in order to suppress the publishers' disfavored speech. 372 U. S., at 66-71. Similarly, in Backpage.com, a sheriff interfered with a website's business relationships with payments-service providers in order to eliminate the website's "adult section" (if not the website itself). 807 F. 3d, at 230-232, 235-236.
在 Bantam Books 案中，委员会干预了经销商和出版商之间的业务关系，以压制出版商不受欢迎的言论。372 U. S., at 66-71。同样，在 Backpage.com 一案中，警长干涉了一家网站与支付服务提供商之间的业务关系，以消除该网站的 "成人板块"（如果不是网站本身的话）。807 F. 3d, at 230-232, 235-236。
In that case, the sheriff wanted to "suffocat[e]" the website, "depriving the company of ad revenues by scaring off its payments-service providers." Id., at 231.
在该案中，警长想要 "窒息 "该网站，"通过吓跑其支付服务提供商来剥夺该公司的广告收入"。同上，第 231 页。
"The analogy," the Seventh Circuit explained, "is to killing a person by cutting off his oxygen supply rather than by shooting him." Ibid. So too here.
"第七巡回法院解释说，"这类比于通过切断一个人的氧气供应而不是向他开枪来杀死他"。同上。此处也是如此。
One can reasonably infer from the complaint that Vullo coerced DFS-regulated entities to cut their ties with the NRA in order to stifle the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy and advance her views on gun control. See, e.g., supra, at 12-15; App. to Pet. for Cert.
从投诉中我们可以合理地推断出，武罗胁迫受 DFS 监管的实体切断与全国枪支协会的联系，以扼杀全国枪支协会的枪支推广宣传，并推进她的枪支管制观点。例如，参见上文第 12-15 页；App.
221, 230-235, Complaint 105. Vullo knew, after all, that the NRA relied on insurance and financing "to disseminate its message." Id., at 231, ; see id., at 203-204, Ф| | 28-29.
221, 230-235, Complaint 105。105. 毕竟，武尔洛知道全国步枪协会依靠保险和融资 "传播其信息"。同上，第 231 页， ；见同上，第 203-204 页，Ф| | 28-29 页。

Lastly, Vullo falls back on the argument that a ruling in the NRA's favor would interfere with the government's ability to function properly. She claims that the NRA's position, if accepted, would stifle government speech and hamper legitimate enforcement efforts.
最后，Vullo 又反咬一口，称支持 NRA 的裁决会干扰政府正常运作的能力。她声称，如果接受 NRA 的立场，将会扼杀政府的言论，阻碍合法的执法工作。
This argument falls flat for the simple reason that it requires the Court to accept Vullo's limited reading of the complaint. The Court does not break new ground in deciding this case.
这一论点是站不住脚的，原因很简单，它要求法院接受 Vullo 对申诉的有限解读。法院在裁决此案时并无新的突破。
It only reaffirms the general principle from Bantam Books that where, as here, the complaint plausibly alleges coercive threats aimed at punishing or suppressing disfavored speech, the plaintiff states a First Amendment claim.
它只是重申了 Bantam Books 案中的一般原则，即在此案中，如果原告合理地指控了旨在惩罚或压制不受欢迎言论的胁迫性威胁，则原告提出了第一修正案的申诉。

Opinion of the Court
法院意见

III

The NRA's allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of intermediary strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted to target the NRA's advocacy.
全美枪支协会的指控如果属实，则凸显了 Vullo 据称为针对全美枪支协会的宣传而采取的中间人策略在宪法方面的问题。
Such a strategy allows government officials to "expand their regulatory jurisdiction to suppress the speech of organizations that they have no direct control over." Brief for First Amendment Scholars as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner 8.
这种策略允许政府官员 "扩大其监管权限，压制他们无法直接控制的组织的言论"。支持请愿人的第一修正案学者法庭之友书状 8。
It also allows government officials to be more effective in their speech-suppression efforts "[b]ecause intermediaries will often be less invested in the speaker's message and thus less likely to risk the regulator's ire." Ibid. The allegations here bear this out.
它还能让政府官员更有效地开展言论压制工作，"因为中间人往往对发言者的信息投入较少，因而不太可能冒监管者的风险"。同上。这里的指控证明了这一点。
Although "the NRA was not even the directly regulated party," Brief for Respondent 32, Vullo allegedly used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA's business partners. Insurers in turn followed Vullo's lead, fearing regulatory hostility.
尽管 "全国枪支协会甚至都不是直接受监管的一方"，被告辩护状 32，但据称 Vullo 利用其办公室的权力，通过打击全国枪支协会的商业伙伴来推广枪支。保险公司担心受到监管部门的敌视，于是纷纷效仿武罗的做法。

Nothing in this case gives advocacy groups like the NRA a "right to absolute immunity from [government] investigation," or a "right to disregard [state or federal] laws." Patterson, 357 U. S., at 463 .
本案中没有任何条款赋予像全国步枪协会这样的宣传团体 "不受[政府]调查的绝对豁免权 "或 "无视[州或联邦]法律的权利"。Patterson, 357 U. S., at 463 .
Similarly, nothing here prevents government officials from forcefully condemning views with which they disagree.
同样，这里也没有任何规定阻止政府官员强烈谴责他们不同意的观点。
For those permissible actions, the Constitution "relies first and foremost on the ballot box, not on rules against viewpoint discrimination, to check the government when it speaks." Shurtleff v. Boston, 596 U. S. 243, 252 (2022).
对于这些允许的行为，宪法 "首先依靠投票箱，而不是反对观点歧视的规则，来制衡政府的言论"。Shurtleff 诉波士顿案，596 U. S. 243, 252 (2022)。
Yet where, as here, a government official makes coercive threats in a private meeting behind closed doors, the "ballot box" is an especially poor check on that official's authority.
然而，就像在这里一样，当政府官员在闭门举行的私人会议上进行胁迫性威胁时，"投票箱 "对该官员的权力的制衡就显得尤为乏力。
Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.
归根结底，关键在于第一修正案禁止政府官员直接或（如此处所称）通过私人中介有选择性地行使权力来惩罚或压制言论。

Opinion of the Court
法院意见

For the reasons discussed above, the Court holds that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's advocacy.
由于上述原因，法院认为，全国枪支协会合理地指控 Vullo 违反了第一修正案，因为 Vullo 胁迫受 DFS 监管的实体终止与全国枪支协会的业务关系，以惩罚或压制全国枪支协会的宣传。

The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
美国第二巡回上诉法院的判决被撤销，此案发回重审，以便按照本意见进一步审理。

It is so ordered.
它是如此有序。
GORSUCH, J., concurring

[May 30, 2024]

JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring.
戈尔苏什大法官，赞同。

I write separately to explain my understanding of the Court's opinion, which I join in full. Today we reaffirm a well-settled principle: "A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf." Ante, at 11.
我单独写信解释我对法院意见的理解，我完全赞同法院的意见。今天，我们重申了一项行之有效的原则："政府官员不得胁迫私人当事方以其名义惩罚或压制不受欢迎的言论"。前注，第 11 页。
As the Court mentions, many lower courts have taken to analyzing this kind of coercion claim under a four-pronged "multifactor test." Ibid. These tests, the Court explains, might serve "as a useful, though nonexhaustive, guide." Ante, at 12. But sometimes they might not. Cf.
正如法院所提到的，许多下级法院已经开始根据四重 "多因素检验标准 "来分析这类胁迫申诉。同上。法院解释说，这些检验标准 "虽然并非详尽无遗，但可以作为有用的指导"。前注，第 12 页。但有时也不一定。参见
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 598 U. S. 175, 205-207 (2023) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment).
Indeed, the Second Circuit's decision to break up its analysis into discrete parts and "tak[e] the [complaint's] allegations in isolation" appears only to have contributed to its mistaken conclusion that the National Rifle Association failed to state a claim. Ante, at 15.
事实上，第二巡回法院决定将其分析分成几个独立部分，并 "孤立地看待[申诉]指控"，这似乎只是促成其得出全国步枪协会未能提出申诉这一错误结论的原因。前注，第 15 页。
Lower courts would therefore do well to heed this Court's directive: Whatever value these "guideposts" serve, they remain "just" that and nothing more. Ante, at 12.
因此，下级法院最好听从本法院的指示：无论这些 "路标 "具有何种价值，它们仍然 "只是 "路标，仅此而已。前注，第 12 页。
"Ultimately, the critical" question is whether the plaintiff has "plausibly allege[d] conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff's speech." Ante, at 12, 19.
"归根结底，关键 "问题在于原告是否 "貌似合理地指控了从上下文来看可以合理地理解为政府为了惩罚或压制原告的言论而采取不利行动的威胁"。前注，第 12、19 页。
JACKSON, J., concurring

[May 30, 2024]

JUSTICE JACKSON, concurring.

Applying our decision in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58 (1963), the Court today explains that a "government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf." Ante, at 11. I agree.
根据我们在 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58（1963 年）一案中的判决，法院今天解释说，"政府官员不能胁迫私人当事方以她的名义惩罚或压制不受欢迎的言论"。前注，第 11 页。我同意这一观点。
I write separately to stress the important distinction between government coercion, on the one hand, and a violation of the First Amendment, on the other.
我单独写信是为了强调政府胁迫与违反第一修正案之间的重要区别。

I

Coercion of a third party can be the means by which the government violates the First Amendment rights of another. But the fact of coercion, without more, does not state a First Amendment claim.
胁迫第三方可能是政府侵犯他人第一修正案权利的手段。但是，仅有胁迫这一事实，并不能说明第一修正案的主张。
Rather, in addition to finding that the government has crossed a line from persuasion to coercion, courts must assess how that coercion actually violates a speaker's First Amendment rights.
相反，除了认定政府已经越过了从劝说到胁迫的界线之外，法院还必须评估这种胁迫实际上如何侵犯了发言者的第一修正案权利。

Our decision in Bantam Books provides one example of how government coercion of a third party can indirectly bring about a First Amendment violation.
我们在 Bantam Books 一案中的判决提供了一个例子，说明政府对第三方的胁迫如何间接导致违反第一修正案。
As the majority explains, ante, at 9-10, Bantam Books held that a Rhode Island commission's efforts to coerce intermediary book distributors into pulling certain publications from circulation violated the First Amendment rights of the books' publish-
正如多数人所解释的，前注，第 9-10 页，Bantam Books 认为，罗得岛州委员会强迫中间图书发行商停止某些出版物的流通，侵犯了图书出版商的第一修正案权利。

JACKSON, J., concurring

ers, 372 U. S., at 61-62, 66-67.
Even though the state commission had not itself "seized or banned" any books, "the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation" against the distributors "directly and designedly stopped the circulation of publications in many parts of Rhode Island." Id., at 67-68.
尽管州委员会本身并没有 "查封或禁止 "任何书籍，但 "威胁对发行商援引法律制裁和其他胁迫、劝说和恐吓手段"，"直接并蓄意地阻止了出版物在罗德岛许多地区的流通"。同上，第 67-68 页。
Essentially, the State's threats to third parties-the distributors-erected through private hands an "effective state regulation . . . of obscenity." Id., at 69.
从根本上说，国家对第三方--分销商--的威胁通过私人之手建立了 "有效的......国家对淫秽的监管"。同上，第 69 页。
And the government could not escape responsibility for the distributors' actions merely because the commission did not itself seize any books. See id., at 66-67.
政府不能仅仅因为委员会本身没有没收任何书籍而逃避对分销商行为的责任。参见同上，第 66-67 页。

Notably, however, the government's coercion of the distributors into doing its bidding was not-in and of itselfwhat offended the First Amendment.
但值得注意的是，政府胁迫分销商为其服务的行为本身并没有触犯《第一修正案》。
Rather, by threatening those third-party conduits of speech, the state commission had effectively "subject[ed] the distribution of publications to a system of prior administrative restraints" lacking the requisite constitutional safeguards. Id., at 70.
相反，通过威胁这些第三方言论渠道，州委员会实际上 "将出版物的发行置于事先行政限制制度之下"，缺乏必要的宪法保障。同上，第 70 页。
Put another way, by exerting pressure on a third party, the State had constructed a "system of informal censorship." Id., at 71 .
换句话说，通过对第三方施加压力，国家建立了一个 "非正式审查制度"。同上，第 71 页。

The lesson of Bantam Books is that "a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly." Ante, at 11. That case does not hold that government coercion alone violates the First Amendment.
Bantam Books 的教训是，"政府官员不能间接地做她被禁止直接做的事"。前注，第 11 页。该案并未认定政府胁迫本身就违反了第一修正案。
And recognizing the distinction between government coercion and a First Amendment violation is important because our democracy can function only if the government can effectively enforce the rules embodied in legislation; by its nature, such enforcement often involves coercion in the form of legal sanctions.
认识到政府胁迫与违反第一修正案之间的区别非常重要，因为只有当政府能够有效执行立法中体现的规则时，我们的民主制度才能发挥作用；就其本质而言，这种执行往往涉及法律制裁形式的胁迫。
The existence of an allegation of government coercion of a third party thus merely invites, rather than answers, the question whether that coercion indirectly worked a violation of the plaintiff's First Amendment rights.
因此，存在政府胁迫第三方的指控只是引出而非回答了该胁迫是否间接侵犯了原告的第一修正案权利这一问题。

JACKSON, J., concurring

II

Whether and how government coercion of a third party might violate another party's First Amendment rights will depend on the facts of the case.
政府胁迫第三方是否以及如何侵犯另一方的第一修正案权利将取决于案件的事实。
Indeed, under our precedents, determining whether government action violates the First Amendment requires application of different doctrines that vary depending on the circumstances.
事实上，根据我们的先例，要确定政府行为是否违反了第一修正案，需要根据不同的情况适用不同的理论。
Different circumstances-who is being coerced to do what, and whymay implicate different First Amendment inquiries.
不同的情况--谁被胁迫做什么，为什么--可能涉及不同的第一修正案调查。

In Bantam Books and many cases applying it, the coercion and First Amendment inquiries practically merge.
在 Bantam Books 和许多适用该案的案例中，胁迫和第一修正案的调查实际上是合二为一的。
This is because those cases tend to follow a similar fact pattern: The plaintiff claims that the government coerced a distributor, purveyor, or conduit of expression-like a billboard company, television station, or book retailer-to shut down the speech of another party that relies on that distributor, purveyor, or conduit to spread its message.* Coercing an entity in the business of disseminating speech to stop disseminating someone else's speech obviously implicates the First Amendment, insofar as it may result in censorship similar to the prior restraint identified in Bantam Books.
这是因为这些案件往往遵循类似的事实模式：原告声称，政府胁迫言论的发布者、传播者或渠道（如广告牌公司、电视台或图书零售商）关闭依赖该发布者、传播者或渠道传播其信息的另一方的言论。* 胁迫从事言论传播业务的实体停止传播他人的言论显然涉及第一修正案，因为这可能导致类似于 Bantam Books 案中确定的事先限制的审查。

But, in my view, that censorship theory is an awkward fit with the facts of this case. According to the complaint, Vullo coerced various regulated entities to cut business ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA). See ante, at 3-5. The
但在我看来，这种审查理论与本案的事实不符。根据诉状，武尔洛胁迫多家受监管实体切断与全国步枪协会（NRA）的业务联系。参见前文，第 3-5 页。美国

JACKSON, J., concurring

NRA does not contend that its (concededly unlawful) insurance products offered through those business relationships were themselves "speech," akin to a billboard, a television ad, or a book.
NRA 并未辩称，其通过这些业务关系提供的（公认非法的）保险产品本身就是 "言论"，类似于广告牌、电视广告或书籍。
Nor does the complaint allege that Vullo pressured the printer of American Rifleman (a longstanding NRA periodical) to stop printing the magazine, or coerced a convention center into canceling the NRA's annual meeting. See VDARE Foundation v. Colorado Springs, 11 F.
诉状也没有指控 Vullo 向《美国步枪手》（全国步枪协会的长期期刊）的印刷商施压，迫使其停止印刷该杂志，或胁迫会议中心取消全国步枪协会的年会。参见 VDARE 基金会诉科罗拉多斯普林斯案，11 F. R.A., 1968。
4th 1151, 1157 (CA10 2021). In other words, the effect of Vullo's alleged coercion of regulated entities on the NRA's speech is significantly more attenuated here than in Bantam Books or most decisions applying it.
4th 1151, 1157 (CA10 2021)。换句话说，与 Bantam Books 案或大多数适用该案的判决相比，Vullo 案所称的胁迫受监管实体对 NRA 言论的影响要小得多。
It is, for instance, far from obvious that Vullo's conduct toward regulated entities established "a system of prior administrative restraints" against the NRA's expression. Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at 70 .
例如，Vullo 对受监管实体的行为建立了针对 NRA 言论的 "事先行政限制制度"，这一点远非显而易见。Bantam Books, 372 U. S., at 70 .

Of course, as the majority correctly observes, none of that means that Vullo may target with impunity the NRA's "'nonexpressive'" activity if she is doing so to punish the NRA for its expression. See ante, at 17.
当然，正如多数人正确指出的那样，这一切并不意味着武罗可以肆无忌惮地针对全国步枪协会的"'非表达性'"活动，如果她这样做是为了惩罚全国步枪协会的表达。参见前文，第 17 页。
But it does suggest that our First Amendment retaliation cases might provide a better framework for analyzing these kinds of allegations-i.e., coercion claims that are not directly related to the publication or distribution of speech.
但它确实表明，我们的第一修正案报复案例可能为分析这类指控提供了一个更好的框架--即与发表或传播言论没有直接关系的胁迫指控。
And, fortunately for the NRA, the complaint in this case alleges both censorship and retaliation theories for how Vullo violated the First Amendment-theories that, in my opinion, deserve separate analyses.
对全国枪支协会来说，幸运的是，本案的诉状对 Vullo 如何违反第一修正案提出了审查和报复两种理论--在我看来，这两种理论值得单独分析。

“'[A]s a general matter,' the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting individuals to 'retaliatory actions' after the fact for having engaged in protected speech." Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U. S. 468, 474 (2022) (quoting Nieves v.
"'一般而言'，第一修正案禁止政府官员在事后对参与受保护言论的个人实施'报复行动'"。休斯顿社区学院系统诉威尔逊案，595 U. S. 468, 474 (2022)（引用 Nieves v.
Bartlett, 587 U. S. 391, 398 (2019)). "[A] plaintiff pursuing a First Amendment retaliation claim must show, among other things, that the government took an 'adverse action' in response to his
Bartlett, 587 U. S. 391, 398 (2019)）。"提出第一修正案报复申诉的原告必须证明，除其他事项外，政府采取了'不利行动'来回应他的申诉。

JACKSON, J., concurring

speech that 'would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive.'" Wilson, 595 U. S., at 477 (quoting Nieves, 587 U. S., at 399). Although our analysis has varied by context, see Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 585 U. S.
如果没有报复动机就不会发表的言论'"。Wilson, 595 U. S., at 477 (quoting Nieves, 587 U. S., at 399).虽然我们的分析因背景而异，但参见 Lozman 诉 Riviera Beach 案，585 U. S., 第 477 页（引用 Nieves 案，587 U. S., 第 399 页）。
87, 96-99 (2018), we have generally required plaintiffs claiming First Amendment retaliation to "establish a 'causal connection' between the government defendant's 'retaliatory animus' and the plaintiff's 'subsequent injury,'" Nieves, 587 U. S., at 398 (quoting Hartman v.
87, 96-99 (2018)，我们通常要求声称受到第一修正案报复的原告 "在政府被告的'报复性敌意'和原告的'后续伤害'之间建立'因果关系'"，Nieves, 587 U. S., at 398 (引用 Hartman v. S., 587 U. S., at 398)。
Moore, 547 U. S. 250, 259 (2006)).

Requiring that causal connection to a retaliatory motive is important, because "[s]ome official actions adverse to . . . a speaker might well be unexceptionable if taken on other grounds." Id., at 256.
要求与报复性动机有因果关系是很重要的，因为 "如果以其他理由采取不利于......发言者的某些官方行动，很可能是无可厚非的"。同上，第 256 页。
In this case, for example, analyzing causation matters because much of Vullo's alleged conduct, if not done for retaliatory reasons, might otherwise be legitimate enforcement of New York's insurance regulations.
例如，在本案中，分析因果关系很重要，因为 Vullo 被指控的许多行为，如果不是出于报复原因，可能是合法执行纽约的保险法规。

How a retaliation analysis should proceed in this case was not addressed below, so the Court rightly leaves that question unanswered today.
本案中的报复分析应如何进行，在下文中并未涉及，因此法院今天不回答这个问题是正确的。
But, importantly, any such analysis requires more than asking simply whether the government's actions crossed the threshold from permissible persuasion to impermissible coercion. The NRA concedes that, at the very least, our burden-shifting framework from Mt. Healthy City Bd.
但重要的是，任何此类分析都不能仅仅询问政府的行为是否跨越了从允许的说服到不允许的胁迫的门槛。全美枪支协会承认，至少我们在健康山市委员会（Mt. Healthy City Bd.
of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274 (1977), likely applies. See Reply Brief 16-17.
在 Ed.诉 Doyle，429 U.S.274（1977 年）一案中，"...... "可能适用。见答复摘要 16-17。
Should that test govern, the NRA would have to plausibly allege that a retaliatory motive was a "'substantial" or "'motivating factor'" in Vullo's targeting of the regulated entities doing business with the NRA. Mt. Healthy, 429 U. S., at 287.
如果采用该测试标准，NRA 就必须合理地指控报复动机是 Vullo 针对与 NRA 有业务往来的受监管实体的"'实质性'或'激励因素'"。Healthy, 429 U. S., at 287.
Vullo, in turn, could rebut that allegation by showing that she would have taken the same action "even in the absence of the [NRA's] protected conduct." Ibid.; see Lozman, 585 U.
反过来，Vullo 可以通过证明 "即使没有[NRA]受保护的行为"，她也会采取同样的行动来反驳这一指控。Ibid.; see Lozman, 585 U.
S., at 96 ("[E]ven if retaliation might have been a substantial motive for the board's action, still there was no liability unless the alleged constitutional violation was a but-for cause of the employment termination").
S.，第 96 页（"即使报复可能是董事会行动的主要动机，但除非指称的违反宪法行为是终止雇用的原因，否则仍无责任"）。

JACKSON, J., concurring

The NRA's complaint advances both censorship and retaliation claims, yet the lower courts in this case lumped these claims together and ultimately focused almost exclusively on whether Vullo's conduct was coercive. See ante, at 6-7.
全国枪支协会的申诉同时提出了审查和报复的主张，但下级法院在本案中却将这些主张混为一谈，最终几乎只关注武尔洛的行为是否具有胁迫性。参见前文，第 6-7 页。
Consequently, the strength of the NRA's claim under the Mt. Healthy framework has received little attention thus far.
因此，迄今为止，NRA 在 Healthy 山框架下的主张力度很少受到关注。
On remand, the parties and lower courts should consider the censorship and retaliation theories independently, mindful of the distinction between government coercion and the ways in which such coercion might (or might not) have violated the NRA's constitutional rights.
发回重审时，双方和下级法院应独立考虑审查和报复理论，同时注意政府胁迫与这种胁迫可能（或不可能）侵犯 NRA 宪法权利的方式之间的区别。
That analysis can and should likewise consider which First Amendment framework best captures the NRA's allegations in this case. See, e.g., VDARE, 11 F. 4th, at 11591175 (separately analyzing censorship and retaliation claims).
这种分析同样可以而且应该考虑哪种第一修正案框架最能反映 NRA 在本案中的指控。例如，参见 VDARE, 11 F. 4th, at 11591175（分别分析审查和报复申诉）。