Mexico’s Complex Legal Battle Against US Gun Companies
Introduction
Mexico’s lawsuit against several US gun manufacturers and a firearms distributor presents a multifaceted legal challenge embroiled in complex legal principles and political headwinds. The case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, alleges that these companies knowingly supplied weapons to Mexican drug cartels, fueling an epidemic of violence in the country. Despite the gravity of the accusations, three key factors cast doubt on Mexico’s chances of prevailing in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), precedent governing aiding and abetting liability, and the current political alignment of the Court.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)
The PLCAA, enacted in 2005, provides broad immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits related to the criminal or illegal misuse of their products. This immunity shields companies from liability when "the product functioned as designed and intended," which, for firearms, is to be used as deadly weapons. However, the PLCAA does include an exception for cases where gun manufacturers aid and abet violations of state or federal law.
Aiding and Abetting Liability
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Twitter v. Taamneh provides some guidance on the concept of aiding and abetting, but the language is sufficiently vague to allow for interpretation in favor of either party in this case. To establish aiding and abetting liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant "gave knowing and substantial assistance" to the person who committed the illegal act. The Court also noted that a weaker showing of knowledge could be compensated by a stronger showing of assistance, or vice versa.
Political Headwinds
The political composition of the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 Republican supermajority, further diminishes Mexico’s prospects. Republican justices have consistently ruled in favor of gun rights, even reinterpreting the Second Amendment to expand gun ownership rights. Given this conservative tilt, it is likely that the justices will be reluctant to rule against the gun industry, especially in a case that involves a sovereign foreign government and complex legal arguments.
Mexico’s Allegations
Mexico alleges that the defendant gun companies knowingly distributed weapons to dealers who then sold them to cartels, often through straw purchasers who would then transfer them to cartel members. The government argues that the companies received warnings from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) about these illegal sales but continued to do business with the offending distributors and dealers.
The Gun Companies’ Defense
The gun companies dispute Mexico’s allegations. They claim that they do not have a duty to police the secondary market for their products and that they cannot be held liable for the actions of criminals who illegally obtain and use their weapons. They also argue that Mexico’s lawsuit is an attempt to shift blame away from its own failures to combat drug trafficking and cartel violence.
Proximate Cause
Another legal hurdle for Mexico is establishing proximate cause between the gun companies’ actions and the violence in Mexico. The PLCAA requires a showing that the companies’ alleged violations of federal laws "was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought." The gun companies contend that the causal chain between their actions and the violence in Mexico is too attenuated and that limiting liability to the immediate perpetrators is more appropriate.
Conclusion
Mexico’s lawsuit against US gun companies faces significant legal challenges under the PLCAA, precedent governing aiding and abetting liability, and the political composition of the Supreme Court. While Mexico presents a compelling case that weapons supplied by the defendants have contributed to violence in their country, the legal and political landscape presents obstacles to their quest for justice. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will interpret the relevant statutes and precedents, but the odds are stacked against the Mexican government.
