Supreme Court Kills Mexico’s $10 Billion Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers

Topline

The Supreme Court ended Mexico’s ongoing lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, ruling Thursday the country can’t legally sue the firearm companies and dealing a blow to gun control advocates who argue the lawsuit is necessary to hold manufacturers accountable for gun violence.

FILE – Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum attends a press conference at the National Palace in … More Mexico City on April 2.

Key Facts

The Supreme Court was asked to determine the future of Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. firearm manufacturers, in which the country’s government asked the companies to pay $10 billion in damages for allegedly “deliberately aid[ing] and abett[ing] the unlawful sale of firearms” to Mexico’s drug cartels.

Gun manufacturers asked justices to throw out a lower court’s ruling allowing the lawsuit to move forward, and the court agreed with them unanimously, ending the lawsuit.

The firearm companies alleged Mexico’s lawsuit violates the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars firearms companies from being sued for criminal activities that involve their products, while Mexico alleged the gun companies are “knowingly” aiding and abetting the cartels’ crimes, which is not allowed under the law.

Justices sided with the companies, ruling that because Mexico didn’t sufficiently show that the manufacturers “aided and abetted” the cartels, the country’s lawsuit violates PLCAA.

Mexico “does not pinpoint … any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted” in to prove that the companies aided and abetted the cartels, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion, arguing the government’s case is instead based on “general” accusations that aren’t enough to prove aiding and abetting.

“It is far from clear” that gun companies simply selling firearms to known cartel arms dealers could ever constitute aiding and abetting, Kagan argued, and Mexico’s arguments are too general to sufficiently prove its case, noting the government “does not confront that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, and its complaint does not name alleged bad-apple dealers or provide grounds for thinking that anyone up the supply chain often acquires that information.”

Chief Critic

“While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico’s actions,” Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga, legal adviser for Mexico’s Foreign Ministry, said in a statement Thursday. “The Mexican Government will continue to do everything in its power to protect Mexicans and to stop the crime gun pipeline.” Global Action on Gun Violence founder Jonathan Lowy, who helped represent the government in court, said Thursday he “strongly disagree[s]” with the court’s ruling, but noted the court’s ruling was not as sweeping as it could have been. Justices “did not accept the gun manufacturers’ sweeping arguments that would have immunized them from virtually all liability for their wrongdoing,” Lowy said in a statement, and “the Court’s opinion would allow gun manufacturers and dealers to be liable in future cases with additional facts.”

What Impact Does The Court’s Ruling Have?

Justices’ ruling against the Mexican government could have broader implications for victims of gun violence, gun control advocates warned prior to the court’s decision coming out. Democratic lawmakers argued in a court filing that the PLCAA’s exception allowing some lawsuits against gun companies is an “important deterrent” for gun manufacturers, noting any decision that restricts lawsuits under that exemption could “deprive victims of gun violence and their families of what is often the only practical recourse they have.” The court’s ruling on Thursday does not directly weaken the PLCAA and applies only to the Mexican government’s case, though it will likely be referenced by future courts in how they consider whether lawsuits should be allowed under that exemption in the law.

Tangent

While they weren’t a party in the lawsuit, Thursday’s ruling is also a win for Republican politicians, who filed court briefs strongly opposing Mexico’s case. A group of GOP lawmakers led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, claimed the litigation was “an affront to American sovereignty,” alleging the Mexican government was trying to “manipulate American courts” into imposing the country’s comparatively stricter gun control laws on the U.S. A coalition of GOP state attorneys general, along with Arizona’s legislature, also submitted a brief opposing Mexico’s case, claiming the Mexican government was “impos[ing]

its policy preferences on the United States by judicial fiat.”

What Does Mexico Allege About The Gun Manufacturers?

Mexico’s lawsuit alleges U.S. firearm manufacturers know full well their products are being sold to drug cartels in Mexico, despite the companies claiming otherwise. The government alleges gun companies have taken steps that help their products be sold to cartels, such as intentionally selling to dealers known to work with the criminal organizations. Manufacturers also market firearms that intentionally cater to the cartels, the Mexican government claims, like Mexico-themed pistols engraved with a quote the government notes is a “particular favorite” of the cartels. The firearm manufacturers oppose those allegations, claiming Mexico is just taking aim at “how the American firearms industry has openly operated in broad daylight for years” and is using the lawsuit to try and force harsher gun control restrictions than what U.S. law requires. The Mexican government “faults the defendants for producing common firearms like the AR-15; for allowing their products to hold more than ten rounds; [and] for failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens,” the companies alleged to the Supreme Court, claiming, “In Mexico’s eyes, continuing these lawful practices amounts to aiding and abetting the cartels.”

What Is The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act?

The PLCAA was passed in 2005 and broadly prohibits manufacturers of firearms or firearm components from facing any civil lawsuits that stem from the “criminal or unlawful misuse” of their products. In addition to the clause allowing lawsuits if companies “knowingly” help aid and abet crimes, the law also states companies can still be sued for breach of contract, if anyone dies or gets injured due to a defect in the product’s manufacturing or design, or if the company commits negligence by supplying their product to someone whom the company knows “is likely to, and does, use the [firearm]” in order to harm themselves or others. Gun control advocacy groups have long been staunchly opposed to the law, with the Giffords Law Center arguing the PLCAA has “helped to shield this profitable industry from facing basic financial incentives to better protect public health and safety” and “left victims of gun violence who are harmed by wrongful firearm industry conduct without any measure of compensation or justice.”

Surprising Fact: Trump’s Fentanyl Efforts Could Have Impacted Case

The court’s ruling comes after President Donald Trump has tried to stop Mexico’s drug cartels from bringing fentanyl into the U.S., including by imposing tariffs on some of the country’s imports and labeling the cartels as terrorist organizations. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum claimed in February that the country’s government could use Trump’s terrorist designation to seek even harsher penalties for the gun manufacturers, saying, “If they declare these criminal groups as terrorists, then we’ll have to expand our US lawsuit.” The leader suggested the country was prepared to file an amended lawsuit in the case seeking to hold the companies liable for alleged complicity with terrorist groups—though Thursday’s ruling killing the lawsuit means that will not happen.

Key Background

The Mexico case was one of two major gun cases the Supreme Court took up this term, with justices ruling in March to uphold Biden-era restrictions on “ghost guns” that can be purchased as a kit and assembled at home, making them harder to trace. The 6-3 conservative court has faced widespread scrutiny for its handling of gun issues in recent years: Justices broadly weakened gun restrictions in a 2022 case over New York’s concealed carry law, which led to gun laws being rolled back nationwide. During its term last year, the court upheld restrictions on domestic abusers owning guns, but also struck down the federal ban on “bump stocks” that allow firearms to function like automatic weapons.