Supreme Court Skeptical of Mexico’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gunmakers

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a significant case involving a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson and Colt. The suit alleges that these companies contribute to the illegal trafficking of firearms that arm drug cartels within Mexico, seeking $10 billion in damages.

Mexico contends that the gunmakers are knowingly facilitating the flow of military-style weapons into the hands of cartels, directly linking the violence prevalent in Mexico to the negligence of these companies in regulating the sale of their firearms. The justices expressed skepticism about Mexico’s claims during a 90-minute oral argument session.

Lawyer Noel Francisco, representing the gun industry, argued that the lawsuit is ultimately invalid under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law enacted in 2005 that provides immunity to gun manufacturers against most civil suits. He stated, “No case in American history supports that theory… If Mexico is right, then Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers,” drawing a parallel to the implications of holding manufacturers responsible for illegal uses of their products.

Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns regarding the design of certain firearms that may be particularly attractive to criminal enterprises, citing allegations that manufacturers create weapons that are easier to modify for illegal use. Francisco acknowledged that the manufacturers treat all dealers the same, which prompted Kagan to inquire whether that includes accommodating rogue dealers.

Cate Stetson, representing the Mexican government, argued that it is crucial for the case to move forward, emphasizing that it still rests at an initial phase and has already passed lower court scrutiny. “Mexico must be allowed to prove its claims,” she said, touting several examples of specific models produced by Colt that are targeted for the Mexican market.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Stetson whether gun manufacturers knowingly sold firearms to problematic dealers, to which she responded affirmatively, elaborating on allegations in Mexico’s complaint against those key suppliers.

Throughout the discussion, justices on both sides of the aisle questioned the ramifications of allowing such a lawsuit, expressing fears about the potential ripple effects on the American economy and the broader implications for manufacturers of various products. Justice Brett Kavanaugh remarked that countless industries, including cars and pharmaceuticals, face similar risks of their products being misused.

Although Stetson argued that the case bears striking similarities to practices in the alcohol industry, it became evident that the court members were divided on the merits of allowing the lawsuit to proceed, with some suggesting that identifying specific proximate causes should be integral to Mexico’s argument.

The backdrop of these proceedings is layered with political tension, as trade between the United States and Mexico faces scrutiny in the ongoing efforts to combat drug trafficking and violence. The Trump administration had previously implemented tariffs on Mexican imports, further straining relations between the two nations.

The court has until late June to render its decision, which could significantly affect the legal landscape surrounding the gun industry and its accountability for the actions that unfold in neighboring countries. The case, formally styled as Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141), marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of gun control and international law.