The U.S. Supreme Court Is Poised To Dismiss Mexico's Lawsuit Against Gunmakers

The U.S. Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to dismiss a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico, which accuses American gun manufacturers of contributing to drug trafficking and violence.

Smith & Wesson, along with U.S. distributor Interstate Arms, is seeking the dismissal of Mexico’s lawsuit, which has been making its way through the U.S. legal system since 2021. Mexico claims that these gunmakers are “aiding and abetting” illegal gun sales by allegedly knowing that some of their products are being sold unlawfully to drug cartels.

The case was initially thrown out in 2022 by a federal judge, who ruled that Mexico’s claims did not overcome the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) — a law passed by Congress in 2005 that protects U.S. gun manufacturers from liability for criminal misuse of their products.

However, an appeals court revived the case, citing an exception to the law, which led Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

During over 90 minutes of oral arguments, a majority of the justices on the conservative-leaning court seemed to support the gun manufacturers. Noel Francisco, representing Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, argued that gun companies cannot be held responsible for the misuse of their products.

“If Mexico is correct, then every law enforcement agency in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history,” Francisco stated. “And Budweiser would be liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers, since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about the broader implications of holding manufacturers accountable for the misuse of their products, questioning how such an expansion of liability might affect the American economy.

“This is a real concern,” Kavanaugh said. “Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that some people will misuse them.”

Justice Samuel Alito raised a point that might resonate with everyday Americans, questioning whether U.S. gunmakers are being unfairly blamed while some may view Mexican officials as contributing to illegal activity within the U.S.

Catherine Stetson, representing Mexico, carefully avoided discussing the U.S. Second Amendment, which protects Americans' right to bear arms. She instead focused on the claim that up to 600,000 firearms are trafficked from the U.S. to Mexico each year, and that manufacturers knowingly sell weapons to rogue dealers who then sell them to cartels.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about the lack of specific allegations against retailers involved in the illegal sales to cartels. “You haven’t sued any of the retailers that were the most proximate cause of the harm,” Barrett pointed out.

Stetson argued that some manufacturers even design guns specifically for the Mexican market, citing firearms with Spanish names like “El Jefe.”

Francisco rejected the idea that giving a gun a Spanish name could establish joint intent with cartels, calling such claims both incorrect and offensive.

Mexico argues that 70-90% of the firearms recovered from crime scenes in the country originate from the U.S. With strict controls on firearm sales in Mexico, it is virtually impossible to legally acquire weapons there. Despite this, drug-related violence has resulted in around 480,000 deaths since 2006, when the government deployed the military to combat trafficking, according to official figures.

The case also takes place amid growing trade tensions between the U.S. and Mexico. On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico, citing Mexico’s insufficient efforts to curb the flow of drugs such as fentanyl into the U.S. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum promised to retaliate with her own set of duties.