Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Mexico’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers
The Supreme Court on Tuesday engaged in intense oral arguments regarding a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government against several U.S. gun manufacturers. Mexico seeks to hold these companies liable for the violence inflicted by drug cartels within its borders, arguing that the manufacturers’ business practices knowingly contribute to the illegal trafficking of firearms into Mexico. However, the justices appeared largely unconvinced by Mexico’s arguments, signaling a potential victory for the gun industry.
Mexico contends that U.S. gun manufacturers deliberately design, market, and distribute their products in ways that facilitate their flow into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. They assert that these companies are aware of the illegal trafficking routes and the ultimate destination of their weapons, yet they continue to engage in business practices that profit from this illicit market.
The gun industry vehemently denies these accusations and argues that they are protected from liability by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law enacted in 2005. This law shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products are used to commit crimes, except in specific circumstances.
Noel Francisco, representing the gun industry, argued that holding manufacturers responsible for the actions of criminals who misuse their products would create an untenable precedent. He posited that the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes is too attenuated to establish direct liability. He offered an analogy, suggesting that if Mexico’s argument held water, a company like Budweiser could be held liable for every accident caused by an underage drinker, simply because it is aware that teenagers may purchase beer, drive drunk, and cause accidents.
Catherine Stetson, representing Mexico, countered that the situation is more akin to Budweiser selling bulk quantities of beer to liquor stores near high schools, knowing that they are regularly selling to underage students, and even designing a special "Best Prom Ever" beer can specifically for sale in those schools. She argued that this level of deliberate targeting and facilitation of illegal activity is precisely what Mexico alleges against the gun manufacturers.
The case arrives at the Supreme Court amidst heightened diplomatic tensions between the United States and Mexico. Former President Trump previously imposed tariffs on Mexican imports to pressure the country to do more to curb the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. Mexico, in turn, has repeatedly emphasized that the influx of American weapons fuels the violence perpetrated by drug cartels within its borders.
During the oral arguments, several justices raised concerns about the potential implications of ruling in favor of Mexico. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether the U.S. could then sue Mexico for allegedly aiding and abetting illegal conduct within U.S. borders that causes states to incur law enforcement and public welfare costs. He directly asked Stetson if Mexico would be willing to litigate such a case in U.S. courts.
Chief Justice John Roberts probed both sides on the threshold for establishing complicity on the part of the gun manufacturers. He asked what percentage of U.S.-made guns ending up in Mexico would be necessary to demonstrate that the manufacturers are knowingly contributing to the problem.
Francisco maintained that the percentage is irrelevant because the core issue is whether the gun manufacturers are directly responsible for the harm caused by the misuse of their weapons. Stetson countered that the crucial question is whether the gun manufacturers are aware of how their weapons are ending up in Mexico and continue to do business with specific distributors and dealers despite warnings about their involvement in trafficking.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor expressed skepticism about Mexico’s argument, citing precedent that "mere knowledge is not enough" to establish liability. She emphasized that Mexico would need to prove that the gun manufacturers "aid and abet in some way" and "intend and take affirmative action to participate" in the illegal trafficking.
Stetson stressed that the lawsuit is still in its early stages and that Mexico should be given the opportunity to present its evidence and build its case.
A federal judge in Massachusetts had previously dismissed the suit, citing the PLCAA as a bar to liability. However, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston reversed that decision, finding that Mexico had adequately alleged that the gun manufacturers "aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico," thus meeting an exception under the PLCAA.
This case marks the Supreme Court’s first significant examination of the PLCAA, which was passed in 2005 in response to attempts by local governments to sue gun manufacturers for the harms caused by gun violence. The law allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers if they knowingly violate another law, such as selling firearms to someone prohibited from owning them, and that violation is the "proximate cause" of the resulting harm.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out that one of Congress’s motivations for enacting the PLCAA was to preserve lawmakers’ ability to regulate the gun industry directly, rather than having it regulated through a series of lawsuits. She questioned whether the changes Mexico is seeking in its suit, along with the potential $10 billion in monetary damages, would lead to the type of indirect regulation that Congress sought to avoid.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed concerns about the potential for expanding liability risks for manufacturers of other dangerous products if Mexico’s theory were to be accepted. "That’s a real concern for me," he stated.
The justices’ questions and comments during oral arguments suggested a significant level of skepticism towards Mexico’s claims, particularly regarding the causal link between the gun manufacturers’ actions and the violence in Mexico. Several justices appeared concerned about the potential for opening the door to a flood of similar lawsuits against manufacturers of other products that could be misused.
Given the tenor of the arguments, legal experts predict the court is likely to rule in favor of the gun manufacturers, potentially reversing the appellate court’s decision and effectively ending Mexico’s lawsuit. A decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos is expected by the end of June. This decision will have significant implications for the gun industry and for future attempts to hold manufacturers liable for the misuse of their products.
