The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of seven U.S. gun manufacturers who were sued by the Mexican government over allegations they aided and abetted illegal gun sales to Mexican cartels. The high court’s decision in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos was unanimous, finding that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a statute that protects gun makers from lawsuits, did not include exceptions that gave the Mexican government the ability to sue.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, noted the exceptions in the law would allow a lawsuit against the gunmakers if they ‘proximately caused’ Mexico harm. However, Kagan emphasized that Mexico’s complaint did not plausibly allege such aiding and abetting. The court concluded that the ‘proximate cause’ standard meant U.S. manufacturers could not be sued when the complex commerce pipeline involved wholesalers, distributors, rogue dealers, smugglers, and then the Mexican cartels.
This case has emerged during a sensitive period in U.S.-Mexico relations, with the Trump administration pushing for stronger border controls and Mexican officials demanding an end to the flow of military-style firearms into the country. Mexico had sought a $10 billion civil lawsuit, but the gunmakers argued their standard practices were being unfairly targeted and that they lacked awareness of illegal transportation of products into Mexico. The ruling also sets a precedent that could impact future lawsuits by victims of gun violence, such as families of Sandy Hook shooting victims, who previously settled with gun companies outside of court.
Gun control advocates criticized the decision, arguing it could shield gun companies from liability in future mass shootings if proven they knowingly violated laws. However, Second Amendment rights groups supported the ruling, stating that the industry should not be held responsible for criminal acts by foreign armed groups. The court’s interpretation of the PLCAA underscores the challenges in suing corporations for crimes committed abroad without clear evidence of direct involvement.