Supreme Court appears likely to rule against Mexico in suit against gun-makers for cartel violence
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to side with U.S. gun companies arguing that Mexico cannot sue over the flow of firearms into the country. (Photo by Luis Barron/Eyepix Group/Sipa USA via the Associated Press)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to side with U.S. gun companies arguing that Mexico cannot sue over the flow of firearms into the country because of a 2005 law providing gun-makers with immunity for third-party crimes committed with their products.
“After a nearly two-hour argument,” the Washington Post reports, “a majority of justices—if not a unanimous court—appeared likely to block the lawsuit from proceeding, with several suggesting Mexico had not shown a close enough connection between guns made in the United States and drug cartel violence.”
Several other publications also reported that the Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to gun company arguments, including Reuters, the New York Times, CNN and SCOTUSblog.
Mexico argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not shield gun companies because they sell to “red-flag dealers” known for illegally selling to straw purchasers who traffic guns across the border. Mexico’s suit seeks injunctive relief and about $10 billion in damages, according to an ABA Journal case preview.
The suit cites a provision in the law that allows civil liability when businesses knowingly violate a state or a federal law regarding the sale or marketing of firearms or when the the companies aid and abet the violation. The violation must also be the proximate cause of the harm—in this case, drug cartel violence—that is the basis of the suit.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston had allowed Mexico to pursue the suit.
Suit defendants Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, a gun distributor, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 1st Circuit’s decision. Initial defendants included seven firearms manufacturers and one wholesaler, but a federal judge dismissed six of them for lack of personal jurisdiction while the cert petition was pending, according to a brief filed by the gun companies.
Noel J. Francisco, a Jones Day partner and a former U.S. solicitor general during President Donald Trump’s first term, argued for the companies.
Mexico “asserts that defendants are liable for every illegal sale by every retailer in America because they know that a small percentage of firearms are sold illegally and don’t do more to stop it,” he said. “If Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”
In an exchange with Catherine Stetson, a lawyer for the Mexican government, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the suit does not contend that gun companies violate any U.S. laws.
Instead, the suit allegations “just go to whether or not the defendant had knowledge that at the end of the day, … some dealers might be doing something wrong,” Jackson said.
The case is Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
The SCOTUSblog case page is here.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
