By Danny Hakim and Kate Christobek
A New York judge decided against imposing an outside monitor on the National Rifle Association on Monday, a win for the embattled gun group and the beginning of the end of a 4-year-old case brought by state regulators.
But Justice Joel M. Cohen of Manhattan Supreme Court said he wanted further assurances that the NRA would reform its governance practices. He directed the organization and the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, 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 CEO, 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 long-standing members and make official a number of other administrative changes that the NRA had previously suggested but not implemented.
Cohen barred LaPierre from serving as an officer or director of the NRA for the next decade, saying he was seeking a “clear break from past practices.”
A 10-year gap would give the organization time to “chart a course well distanced from the one created by this litigation,” Cohen said. Justice Joel M.
He did not impose restrictions on another defendant, John Frazer, who was recently removed as general counsel but still serves as corporate secretary, stating that Frazer was by and large performing his duties in good faith.
Thus far, the case has been a split decision. The NRA has held off the most severe regulatory outcomes. Even before the trial, it persuaded Cohen to reject James’ attempt to dissolve the group, which she referred to as a “terrorist organization” when she was running for office. And on Monday, the NRA beat back her effort to impose a court-appointed monitor who would have had broad authority over its finances and practices.
But the case has already upended the organization. LaPierre, who led the NRA for more than three decades, retired on the eve of the trial. In February, he was found liable for misspending $5.4 million in NRA funds after revelations that he had splurged on superyacht junkets, charter flights, vacations in the Bahamas and nearly $275,000 in suits from a Beverly Hills boutique. Wilson Phillips, a former finance chief, was found liable for $2 million.
The association’s revenue and membership have plummeted as many members, key donors and even a few board members turned against its leadership amid the revelations about how their money was being spent. The group’s role as a political powerhouse in the Republican Party has also been severely diminished, as other groups have arisen to challenge its dominance of the gun lobby.
The NRA was founded as a nonprofit in New York more than 150 years ago, giving the state special authority over the group; James sued in 2020 amid headlines about lavish spending by LaPierre and other top executives.
“At this point in time, we’re relieved that we’re where we are in the process,” Doug Hamlin, who was elected the NRA’s new CEO in May, said in a brief interview outside the courtroom, after the judge announced his decision.
“We are committed to transparency and good governance and being good stewards of our membership fees, and we’re going to prove it,” he added.
If the NRA and James’ office fail to agree on reform measures, the judge could still take further action in the case.
William A. Brewer III, the NRA’s lead outside counsel, said Monday’s developments “validate the NRA’s reform efforts and commitment to good governance — and recognize the First Amendment stakes of this case.”
James, in her own statement, said, “After years of corruption, the NRA and its senior leaders are finally being held accountable.” She added that the trial had “demonstrated that the NRA had a stunning lack of accountability and its leaders engaged in illegality and self-dealing.”
Both the NRA and LaPierre argued strenuously against imposing an outside monitor on an organization that has long distrusted the government. During his testimony, LaPierre said it would “be equivalent to putting a knife straight through the heart of the organization and twisting it.”
Sarah Rogers, a lawyer representing the NRA, said of the organization: “Like American democracy, it sometimes errs,” adding, “It’s committed to do more, and it can on its own.”
But the attorney general’s office repeatedly expressed concern that the NRA could not be trusted, given its recent history. Factionalism remains deeply rooted within the organization. In May, Bob Barr, a former Georgia congressman and a LaPierre ally, was elected president of the board, but many areas of disagreement surfaced during the trial between him and Hamlin, highlighting the challenges that remain.
Cohen took aim at the NRA’s old guard in his remarks, taking particular issue with statements made by Barr and his predecessor, Charles Cotton, who characterized the verdict in the first phase of the trial this year as a vindication of the NRA. The judge called their comments “simply false” and said they demonstrated a “stunning lack of accountability.”
Monica Connell, a lawyer in the attorney general’s office, echoed these concerns during her closing argument Monday.
“This entrenched leadership has controlled the NRA for over a decade,” she said, adding, “It should not give the court any faith that absent the spotlight, absent the scrutiny, that this reform will continue.”
Cohen raised such concerns himself.
“As soon as this case goes dark, the question is what stops us from going backwards?” he asked. But he said he thought “that the NRA is serious about turning a corner here” and urged the group to negotiate a reasonable agreement with the attorney general about “what it claims to desire, an NRA 2.0 that represents a clear break from the past.”
Commentaires