The U.S. Supreme Court appears inclined to dismiss a $10 billion lawsuit filed by the Mexican government against major American firearm manufacturers, alleging their practices have fueled cartel-related violence in Mexico.
During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism regarding Mexico’s claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted concerns about the broader implications of accepting Mexico’s theory, noting that many products can be misused, and allowing such lawsuits could have significant economic repercussions.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson observed that the lawsuit seems to seek changes in the firearm industry akin to those the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was designed to prevent. Enacted in 2005, the PLCAA generally shields gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used in crimes.
Mexico’s lawsuit, initiated four years ago, targets prominent companies like Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, and Glock Inc. The Mexican government contends that these manufacturers knowingly facilitated gun trafficking into Mexico, where strict firearm laws exist, by supplying weapons to dealers who sell to straw purchasers acting on behalf of drug cartels.
The manufacturers argue that they produce lawful products and cannot be held responsible for the criminal misuse of their firearms. They assert that Mexico’s claims do not demonstrate a direct connection between their business practices and the violence perpetrated by cartels.
A federal judge initially dismissed the lawsuit under the PLCAA, but an appeals court later revived it, citing an exception for cases where firearm companies are accused of knowingly violating laws in their sales or marketing practices. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision, expected by late June, will determine whether this exception applies and if the lawsuit can proceed.
