NRA and Foundation Feud Levels Up: Partial Dismissals and Countersuit

The NRA v. NRA Foundation family feud has leveled up. A federal judge dismissed some of NRA’s claims against the Foundation and the Foundation has punched back with a countersuit. 

The National Rifle Association and the group formerly known as the NRA Foundation — rebranded to 1791 Foundation — has been locked in battle since 2025. What was a private squabble has turned into lawsuits. Yes, suits. And there appears to be no concessions happening from either group anytime soon. A federal judge recently dismissed some of the NRA’s claims against the Foundation and shortly thereafter, the Foundation filed its own countersuit against the Association.

Earlier this year the NRA filed a lawsuit against their subsidiary group the NRA Foundation. NRA v. NRA Foundation was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The court recently rendered an opinion accepting some of the Foundation’s requests to dismiss the case.

The June 24 opinion states that the case between the Association and Foundation is so novel that the plaintiffs would be better suited filing in D.C. civil court to address most of their allegations. U.S District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan allowed several claims to stand. Those claims have to do with federal trademark law and cybersquatting.

Opening the opinion, Judge Sooknanan observes that the lawsuit is an “acrimonious dispute between the National Rifle Association (NRA), a nonprofit organization devoted to protecting Second Amendment rights, and The NRA Foundation, Inc. (the Foundation), an affiliate nonprofit incorporated by the NRA in 1990 to support the NRA’s charitable programs.” However, she also notes that: “As intriguing as that dispute may be, it will not be resolved by this Court.”

The opinion states that the NRA brought a dozen claims against the Foundation, but that only a handful are under the jurisdiction of federal law.

While the federal court will continue to hear arguments on NRA’s claim that the Foundation has engaged in unlawfully using their trademark and engaged in cybersquatting, Judge Sooknanan directs the Association to file their other claims in D.C. court. Beyond directing the Association to file in D.C. court, the judge outlined exactly what the NRA would have to do to prevail against the Foundation at that level.

Ultimately speaking, the court says that “the NRA’s non-trademark D.C.-law claims also appear to present novel issues.” And for that reason the federal court will be dismissing those claims.

The trademark-related claims that will persist in federal court are: “Trademark infringement, false designation and unfair competition, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act; cybersquatting under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act; and common-law trademark infringement.”

The order states: “The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Counts VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII of the Amended Complaint.”

“As expected, the courts have rejected the organization formerly known as the NRA Foundation’s erroneous attempt to dismiss the NRA’s lawsuit,” said the NRA in a statement to Bearing Arms. “This ruling clears the way for our challenge to proceed and explicitly directs the NRA to file a companion case in Washington, D.C. We anticipated this result and have filed that second lawsuit in the nation’s capital.”

There does not appear to be a docket or case jacket on any new filings against the Foundation at the time of publication.

The NRA (1791) Foundation did not respond to a request for comment on the partial dismissal.

One day following the order from Judge Sooknanan, the NRA Foundation — under the name 1791 Foundation — filed a countersuit, The 1791 Foundation, Inc., v. The National Rifle Association of America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.

In the Foundation’s preliminary statement they allege that “this case is about greed, deception, and retaliation.” The Foundation accuses the NRA of trying to use them as a “piggybank” and “turned its sights on the Foundation’s assets.”

Some of the things the Foundation alleges include:

When the Foundation refused to buy the NRA’s headquarters building, declined to pay $800,000 to the NRA for a collection of firearms that had no connection to the Foundation’s charitable purposes, declined to pay more than $2 million in excess overhead costs for the 2026 calendar year, and rejected a sham “royalty” demand of 20% of all Foundation revenue for the Foundation to continue using its legal name—a demand the NRA itself admitted had no basis in fair market value—the NRA retaliated. 

The Foundation further alleges that the NRA filed their lawsuit in order to “deceive its auditors and the public” because “deconsolidation of the Foundation from the NRA for accounting purposes would strip approximately $176 million in net assets from the NRA’s financial statements.”

The 31-page filing is as fiery as this conflict has been since it started simmering in the shadows last year.

Allegations made about the NRA proper having “a history of jeopardizing Foundation assets” may raise some eyebrows. How many of the current trustees who serve on the Foundation’s board were members of the NRA’s Board of Directors during the period they’re accusing “the NRA board (of) fail(ing) to exercise independent judgment”? What actions did these trustees take at the time to stop any of the things they accuse the NRA Board of Directors of? And what proof is there, if any, of them trying to stop these bad actors from being allowed to “jeopardize Foundation assets”?

Are former board members — who are current trustees of the Foundation — responsible for what they’re accusing the NRA of?

There are currently two federal lawsuits involving the Foundation and NRA with a third civil case either already filed or about to be filed in the District of Columbia. Things are likely to get murkier and dirtier prior to getting better. With a fresh batch of allegations and new lawsuits filed, there’ll be no lack of material to cover on these conflicts for what’s likely — unfortunately — to go on for years. Ultimately speaking the donors, members, and NRA employees will be paying the price, regardless of who “wins.”

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Bearing Arms’s pro-2A reporting covering all aspects of our right to keep and bear arms? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.