On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on whether Mexico may proceed with its lawsuit against the United States. Gun manufacturers are accused of causing violence by the drug cartels who use American guns.
The case is the first to ask the highest court of the country to take into consideration the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law, passed in 2005 by Congress, gives gun manufacturers immunity from liability for any injuries that may be caused due to criminal misuse.
This case was heard by the Supreme Court the day after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs against Mexico to pressure the country to end fentanyl and illegal immigration.
The outcome of this case may have a significant impact on the U.S., depending on the ruling of the court. Andrew Willinger is the executive director of Duke Center for Firearms Law.
He said that if the majority of the judges use the same language and decide the case, lower courts may be more skeptical about these lawsuits.
The Supreme Court of Canada declined in 2019 to hear an argument from a gun maker that the PLCAA prevented the Sandy Hook victims’ families from suing.
Willinger stated that this decision could be more difficult if it is interpreted in a more general way.
Why Did Mexico Sue US Firearm Companies?
Mexico sued leading U.S. firearm manufacturers for $10 billion in 2021, alleging that they facilitated the illegal trafficking of guns to Mexican drug cartels and caused violence in Mexico.
The government of Mexico said in its filing that there is only one firearms store, and it issues less than fifty gun permits per year. It also stated that 70% of the guns found at crime scenes are from the US.
Mexico claims that the companies were aware of weapons being sold by traffickers to smugglers who brought them into Mexico, and they decided to take advantage of this market.
The accused include well-known manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Beretta.
The “deliberately” sell through dealers known for selling firearms recovered from crime scenes throughout Mexico. These red-flag sellers are provided with firearms they know the cartels will prefer. They design and market these firearms to cater to the cartels. The red-flag dealers are embracing distribution methods they know will allow them to sell illegally to traffickers. They do this deliberately to increase their profits,” Mexico said in an official filing.
Gun companies claim that Mexico is “bullying” gunmakers to adopt gun control measures by claiming the gun industry did nothing to intentionally allow weapons to be used for cartel use.
These companies claimed that PLCAA prohibited certain lawsuits brought against firearm manufacturers.
In filings, they stated that “when the producer or supplier of a lawful product simply places its product into the general flow of commerce, the statute of aiding and abetting does not require this business to police every bad actor picking up their products downstream.”
What Did Lower Courts Decide?
A district court dismissed the lawsuit at first, citing legal protections that gun manufacturers have against damages caused by criminal misuse of firearms.
First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, holding that although the PLCAA applies to foreign lawsuits for damage suffered abroad, Mexico’s suit falls under the “predicate exemption” of the law, which permits lawsuits when firearm companies knowingly break the law.
Gun makers ask the Supreme Court for an overturning of the ruling by the appellate court.
The National Rifle Association expressed to the Supreme Court that Mexico had extinguished their constitutional right of arms and was now trying to extinguish America’s.
Willinger stated that he believed that the courts would side with gun makers in this case. He added that this was an obvious conclusion from the decision of the court to hear the case so early.
He said that if the justices had been sympathetic towards Mexico’s claims, they might have looked at the case and stated that “we wanted to give the trial courts a chance” to hear what Mexico brought forward. But the fact they did not, indicates that they may be unhappy with the ruling of the appeals court.
What is the impact of this case on Americans?
Willinger stated that the words chosen by the court would be critical.
Families of Sandy Hook victims could sue gun companies under an exception in the PLCAA. The manufacturer who made the assault rifle used by Adam Lanza settled with them for 73 million dollars in 2022.
He said that while the Sandy Hook violations were not the same, the fact that the PLCAA was viewed as important by a court could have prevented cases such as Sandy Hook.
He said that if the courts are more concerned with the type of violation (like aiding or abetting an illegal sale) and how much a manufacturer is liable, even if they didn’t know what was going on, it could impact domestic litigation, because many issues in these cases were the same.
