## Facts

- The National Rifle Association (NRA) operated with a 75-member Board of Directors.
- Board members were elected by NRA “life members”; the organization had about 146,000 life members and more than 800,000 annual members.
- The NRA published *The American Rifleman*, its official journal, distributed only to NRA members.
- *The American Rifleman* was funded through member dues and advertising revenue.
- Before the Board election, the NRA used *The American Rifleman* to publish information about Board candidates, making the magazine an important communication channel during the election period.
- Thomas Fitzgerald, an NRA member and candidate for the Board, sought to communicate with eligible voters by purchasing advertising space in *The American Rifleman*.
- Fitzgerald submitted a paid advertisement about his candidacy and tendered the required payment.
- The NRA refused to run the advertisement, informing plaintiffs that the material was “unsuitable for publication.”
- The NRA relied in part on its advertising rate card, which stated that it “reserves the right to reject or discontinue any advertisement and to edit all copy.”
- Fitzgerald and other plaintiffs sued in federal district court seeking an order compelling the NRA to publish the advertisement (a mandatory injunction/specific performance-type remedy), rather than money damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a private membership organization that publishes a members-only magazine is legally required to accept and print a member-candidate’s paid campaign advertisement.
2. Whether *The American Rifleman*’s role in internal Board elections transforms it from a private publication into a forum or enterprise with duties comparable to a business “clothed with a public interest,” such that a court may compel publication.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling publication of Fitzgerald’s advertisement.
- The court held that the NRA and *The American Rifleman* are private entities and that the publisher generally retains discretion to refuse advertising.
- The court entered judgment for the NRA on the requested mandatory relief.

## Legal Principles

- A newspaper or magazine, as a private enterprise, generally has the right to accept or refuse advertisements and is ordinarily free to contract and deal with whomever it chooses.
- Publisher discretion over advertising is tied to the private character of the enterprise; absent special circumstances, courts do not treat such publications as public utilities or as forums required to carry paid messages.
- The fact that a publication is widely circulated within a private organization, funded by dues, or used as a major communication channel in organizational affairs does not, by itself, convert it into a quasi-public forum subject to compelled access.
- Where an organization’s advertising materials expressly reserve the right to reject advertisements, a prospective advertiser typically cannot show a clear contractual entitlement to publication absent a specific promise, bylaw, or other binding commitment granting access.
- Mandatory injunctive relief compelling publication requires a clear legal right; where the plaintiff cannot identify a legal duty to publish, courts will not order a private publisher to print particular content.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to compel the NRA to publish a Board candidate’s paid campaign advertisement in *The American Rifleman*, holding that the magazine remained a private publication with the ordinary right to reject advertising and that plaintiffs lacked a legal basis—by contract, bylaws, or otherwise—to force publication.


Fitzgerald v. National Rifle Association, 383 F. Supp. 162 (1974)