Supreme Court Justices Weigh Mexico’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that could have significant implications for both international relations and domestic gun control. At issue is whether Mexico can hold American gun manufacturers legally liable for the violence perpetrated by drug cartels using weapons smuggled across the border. The justices appeared divided during the 90-minute session, grappling with complex questions of causation, legal precedent, and the potential ramifications of their decision.
Mexico argues that U.S. gunmakers knowingly contribute to the flow of firearms into the hands of criminals, thereby fueling the country’s drug-related violence. They seek to file a $10 billion civil suit in American courts, citing the devastating impact of this violence on Mexican society. Mexico has strict gun control laws, so they say that these types of guns don’t exist on their soil.
The gun manufacturers, on the other hand, contend that they cannot be held responsible for the illegal actions of individuals who misuse their products. They argue that their routine business practices are being unfairly targeted and deny any knowledge that their firearms are being illegally transported into Mexico. They want to keep their freedom to manufacture guns for Americans.
The case hinges on the concept of "proximate cause," which refers to the direct link between an action and its consequences. The justices questioned whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of the injuries alleged by the Mexican government. They also debated whether gunmakers could be accused of aiding and abetting illegal gun sales to traffickers across the border.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor articulated Mexico’s legal position, stating, "We know that a straw seller is going to sell to someone who is going to use the gun illegally, because if they weren’t, they wouldn’t use the straw purchaser, and that illegal conduct is going to cause harm." This line of reasoning suggests that gunmakers are aware, or should be aware, that their products are being diverted into the illegal market.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about the potential consequences of such a broad interpretation of liability. He stated, "Your theory of aiding and abetting liability would have destructive effects on the American economy. Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they’re going to be misused by some subset of people. They know that to a certainty, that it’s going to be pharmaceuticals, cars, what you can name, lots of products. So that’s a real concern."
The case comes at a delicate time in U.S.-Mexico relations. The Trump administration had previously pressured Mexico to tighten its border security to prevent the flow of drugs and migrants into the United States. Meanwhile, Mexican officials have demanded that the U.S. address the issue of military-style firearms ending up in Mexico, which they say fuels the drug crisis.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could also have implications for the broader national debate over gun control. A 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), generally shields gunmakers from civil suits when their products are criminally misused by others. However, Mexico is relying on exceptions in the law to pursue its claims.
Families of gun violence victims, such as those from the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, have previously attempted to file similar lawsuits against gunmakers. While those families reached a settlement with Remington, this case marks the first time the Supreme Court will rule on the limits of the PLCAA.
Gun control advocates fear that a ruling against Mexico could make it more difficult to hold U.S. gunmakers accountable in future mass shootings, even if it can be proven that they knowingly and foreseeably broke the law. Gun rights groups, however, argue that a lawful industry should not be held liable for the criminal acts of armed gangs in another country.
Estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives suggest that anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 American-made guns are illegally trafficked into Mexico each year, a phenomenon known as the "Iron River." The Giffords Center for Violence Intervention reports that over 70% of illegal guns seized in Mexico between 2013 and 2018 were sold in the U.S.
Mexico has only one gun store, which is managed by the country’s military. There are no private shops, gun shows, or commercial manufacture of firearms. As of 2018, only 3,215 private gun licenses had been issued in Mexico for low-caliber weapons. Illegal possession of firearms is the third leading cause of criminal imprisonment in the country. Mexico is usually among the top three countries globally in annual gun deaths.
Recently, the Trump administration designated six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. This highlights the severity of the violence plaguing the country.
During the oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that Mexico had not sued any of the retailers who were the most proximate cause of the harm. She also noted that Mexico had not identified these retailers in its complaint. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that the remedies sought by Mexico, such as changes to gun distribution and marketing practices, would amount to regulatory constraints that Congress did not intend for the courts to impose.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the gunmakers’ attorney about the percentage of guns manufactured in the United States that end up in Mexico. He asked whether the legal analysis would change if that number were significantly higher, suggesting that at some point, the proximate cause lines drawn by the gunmakers might not be able to bear the weight of the ultimate result.
The case is titled Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141). A ruling is expected by late June, and the outcome will likely have far-reaching implications for gun control, international relations, and the balance between corporate responsibility and individual criminal behavior.
