NRA Wants $200 Million From Brewer Law Firm; Brewer Calls It Baseless
The NRA wants $200 million from William A. Brewer III and Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, the Texas firm it retained in 2018. The gun rights group says the firm caused “catastrophic financial and reputational harm.” The NRA filed a six-page application for arbitration in the 68th District Court of Dallas County, attaching exhibits that reach back to March 2018. The firm responded within days with a 183-word statement calling the claims “baseless.” Brewer says its record speaks for itself, and it points to its work on the NRA’s First Amendment litigation at the U.S. Supreme Court. The firm says it will defend that record “vigorously.”
Key Details
The dispute centers on an arbitration application, not a jury verdict or a court ruling on liability. The NRA’s filing names Brewer and his firm as the parties responsible for the alleged damage. Here is what the public record and the firm’s response show so far:
- Amount sought: $200 million.
- Filing: A six-page application for arbitration, with exhibits, in the 68th District Court of Dallas County, Texas.
- Start of relationship: March 2018, the month the NRA first hired Brewer for a legal matter.
- Brewer’s response: A 183-word statement calling the NRA’s assertions “baseless claims.”
- Firm’s claimed win: Brewer says it led the NRA’s advocacy in the Supreme Court case it describes as the most important First Amendment victory in 65 years.
- Praise cited: Then-NRA President Carolyn Meadows, in 2019, described the firm as “more on call, attentive, and positively in tune to the needs of their client.”
- Committee endorsement: The NRA’s Special Litigation Committee, which included then-President Bob Barr, former President Charles Cotton, and longtime director David Coy, said in 2024 when the representation ended: “Fortunately, we chose the Brewer firm to defend us.”
- Cotton quote: Cotton credited the firm’s “strategic counsel and unique brand of advocacy” with helping the NRA win at the Supreme Court.
Two things stand out. The NRA’s own committee and its former president praised the firm in writing, and the NRA now calls the same firm responsible for catastrophic harm. Both positions cannot describe the same period cleanly. The arbitration application will need to explain what changed between those statements and the filing.
Background
The Brewer firm’s work for the NRA began in 2018, when the gun group faced a government campaign in New York. Brewer’s statement says New York announced a campaign, coordinated with other states, aimed at destroying the NRA. That fight produced the Supreme Court case that Brewer now cites. In National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, decided in May 2024, the Court unanimously held that a New York financial regulator’s effort to pressure insurers into cutting ties with the NRA could violate the First Amendment. The ruling gave gun groups a clear test for government retaliation against speech, and it did not involve Second Amendment doctrine directly.
The NRA’s finances and governance have been under scrutiny for years. New York’s attorney general pursued the organization in court in 2020, and the NRA moved its state of incorporation to Texas in 2021. That move placed the NRA’s legal fights and this dispute in the Texas court system. The NRA’s current claim arrives after the representation ended in 2024, which is the timeline the firm itself highlights.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Members who pay dues should care how the NRA spends its money. A $200 million claim is not a small number for any organization, and the outcome could affect how much cash the NRA has available for lobbying, litigation, and member services. If the NRA recovers money from the firm, the funds could support future court fights. If the NRA loses, or if the dispute drags on, the organization may spend more on lawyers instead of advocacy.
Gun owners who follow the NRA’s legal strategy should watch the arbitration docket in Dallas County. The filing will show what the NRA claims went wrong, whether it ties damages to specific decisions, and whether it names any Second Amendment cases beyond the Supreme Court matter. Donors in Texas and New York have the most direct stake, since both states have shaped the NRA’s recent legal battles. Anyone who relies on NRA-backed litigation should also note that the organization’s legal capacity depends on how this dispute resolves.
Do not treat either side’s public statement as settled fact. Both the NRA and the firm have strong incentives to frame the record. Read the filings, not the press releases.
DownRange Analysis
The NRA’s case rests on a contract-style claim, and the arbitration route suggests the dispute turns on an agreement and its terms. Brewer’s strongest argument is the Vullo win and the committee praise, which show the NRA valued the work for years. Those statements do not prove the firm performed flawlessly, but they make a sudden $200 million demand harder to sell to a neutral arbitrator. The NRA will need documents showing specific failures and a clear causal link to the losses it claims.
Right now, members should do three things. First, check how the NRA reports legal expenses and settlements in its public financial disclosures. Second, ask whether the organization plans to disclose the arbitration outcome to members. Third, keep supporting the advocacy groups and litigators you trust, but track where your money goes. A gun rights group is only as strong as its books and its counsel.
