Judge Rejects Continuing NY Oversight of NRA

We told you two weeks ago that the NY Attorney General was seeking an order requiring the National Rifle Association to submit to continuing and indefinite state oversight in the wake of all the private inurement and excess benefit.  The AG sought the appointment of an “independent compliance monitor with responsibility to report to the Attorney General and the Court; the appointment of an independent governance expert to advise the Court on reforms necessary to the governance of the NRA to ensure the proper administration of charitable assets; [and an order] directing the NRA to implement such governance reforms as the Court deems necessary ensure the proper administration of charitable assets.”

Yesterday in an order read from the bench but not yet published, the Judge rejected the State’s request, according to the Associated Press and NY Times.  The judge agreed, apparently, with the NRA’s and Wayne LaPierre’s argument that state oversight and control would send the wrong signal to donors and stakeholders.  The judge also referenced the effect on the NRA’s First Amendment advocacy rights, saying that state supervision should be undertaken as a last resort.  As reported by the AP:

Ruling from the bench, Cohen said the state’s request for a monitor was not the correct remedy, suggesting the oversight mechanism would be “time-consuming, disruptive and will impose significant costs on the NRA without corresponding benefits.” Cohen also said he had concerns about “speech-chilling government intrusion on the affairs of the organization.” Earlier Monday, LaPierre told the judge that appointing a monitor to oversee the gun rights group’s finances would be “equivalent to putting a knife straight through the heart of the organization and twisting it.” He described the appointment of a monitor as an existential threat to the group because it would send a message to prospective members and donors that the NRA was “being surveilled by this attorney general in New York.” 

An attorney for the NRA, Sarah Rogers, echoed those concerns. She said the group had implemented new controls since the jury’s verdict, including bringing on fresh board members and a new compliance team.

Still, the Judge was not entirely sanguine about the NRA’s ability or willingness to maintain good governance practices it has undertaken since the start of the case.  Instead, he related concerns that once the spotlight on the NRA dimmed — “as soon as the case goes dark” —  the organization might return to the ways that got it in trouble in the first place.  As reported by the Times:

But Justice Joel M. Cohen of Manhattan Supreme Court said he wanted further assurances that the N.R.A. would reform its governance practices. He directed the organization and the office of Attorney General Letitia James of New York, which brought the case, to negotiate the details of a series of reform measures that he largely laid out. The measures are aimed at breaking up the cronyism that has kept a small group of allies of Wayne LaPierre, the former chief executive, largely in control.

The judge told the two sides to discuss how to make it easier for candidates to get onto the group’s 76-member governing board and to explore shrinking the board to a more manageable size. He also wants to purge the association’s audit committee of longstanding members and make official a number of other administrative changes that the N.R.A. had previously suggested but not implemented.

The Judge apparently agreed with LaPierre’s underlying sentiment, though perhaps not LaPierre’s rhetoric.  He nevertheless banned LaPierre from holding any paid position with the NRA for ten years.  LaPierre said the ban would infringe upon his First Amendment advocacy rights.  The judge rejected that argument saying that LaPierre could perform uncompensated work for the NRA.  The NRA issued a statement shortly after the judge’s ruling, labeling the AG’s actions “politically motivated.”  

Four years ago, the NYAG filed a “dissolution lawsuit” against the NRA – a case that sought to shut down the Association and seize its assets. Today, New York State Supreme Court Justice Joel M. Cohen in Manhattan rejected the NYAG’s demands for a compliance monitor and instead recommended the NRA and NYAG confer to consent to further governance reforms. In accordance with the court’s direction, the NRA will suggest additional reforms in furtherance of its ongoing commitment to good governance.

The NYAG sought something vastly different: a “monitor” that would have been an invasive and crippling remedy with financial oversight, access to employees and records, and an open line of communication with the NYAG. That proposal was rejected by the court.

 darryll k. jones