NRA Donors Advance Suit Over Enrichment of LaPierre (Correct)

The National Rifle Association must face a lawsuit alleging it solicited donations that were fraudulently used to fund the lavish lifestyles of former CEO Wayne LaPierre and other top figures at the organization.

The ruling comes one month after a Manhattan jury found that the NRA and LaPierre misused millions of dollars in charitable assets under state law governing nonprofit organizations and that LaPierre breached his duty to the group by enriching himself in the process.

The plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims of a breach of contract and tortious interference with contract based on the organization’s express promise to use donated funds to further its mission and its alleged misuse of those funds, Judge William L. Campbell Jr. of the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee said Wednesday.

The plaintiffs also sufficiently pleaded that the NRA committed mail fraud and wire fraud in support of their claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Campbell said. And the plaintiffs sufficiently claimed the NRA’s alleged decades-long agreement to transfer donated funds to support the LaPierre’s alleged extravagance constituted a “conspiracy” under the RICO statute, the court said.

Campbell denied the NRA’s motion to dismiss.

The NRA argued in its motion that the RICO claim failed because the plaintiffs failed to allege the predicate acts—of mail fraud and wire fraud—necessary to state a claim under the statute, but Campbell disagreed.

The plaintiffs plausibly alleged that letters sent from the NRA Foundation and promises on the NRA website misrepresented how donated funds were to be used, he said. That was enough to establish the required predicate acts, he said.

The organization’s challenge to the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract and tortious-interference claims fared no better.

The organization said the plaintiffs’ reliance on the NRA’s Uniform Disclosure Statement was misplaced because it didn’t contain a representation of the NRA’s mission, but that was “somewhat disingenuous,” Campbell said.

Far from pointing to a “technical deviation from the organizational mission,” the plaintiffs alleged that the NRA publicly states that its mission is to defend Second-Amendment rights, he said. “This is sufficiently specific to form the basis of a contract.”

Campbell also rejected the NRA’s argument that the contract claims should be tossed because they didn’t relate back to the date of the original complaint for the purposes of the statute of limitations.

The factual allegations from which the existence of a contract could be inferred were included in the original complaint, indicating that they related back to the original pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he said.

Loevy & Loevy represents the plaintiffs. Lacy, Price & Wagner PC represent the NRA.

The case is Dell’Aquila v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n, M.D. Tenn., No. 3:19-cv-00679, 3/26/25.