SCOTUS to Consider Mexico’s Suit Against U.S. Gun Makers

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether Mexican government may continue its lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers. The suit, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, alleges the manufacturers aided and abetted the illegal sales of guns to traffickers for cartels in Mexico.

Facts of the Case

The government of Mexico filed suit against seven U.S. gun manufacturers and one gun distributor. Combined, the defendants produce more than sixty-eight percent of the U.S. guns trafficked into Mexico, which comes out to between 342,000 and 597,000 guns each year. Mexico alleges that defendants know that their guns are trafficked into Mexico and make deliberate design, marketing, and distribution choices to retain and grow that illegal market and the substantial profits that it produces. Mexico is seeking billions of dollars in damages, along with injunctive relief imposing new gun-control measures in the United States.

Lower Court’s Decision

The district court dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars suits against firearms companies based on criminals misusing their products. However, the First Circuit reversed.

The First Circuit agreed that the PLCAA’s limitations on the types of lawsuits that may be maintained in the United States apply to lawsuits initiated by foreign governments for harm suffered outside the United States. However, it further held that Mexico’s complaint plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA’s general prohibition. It specifically found that the PLCAA does not bar the suit because Mexico stated a claim that defendants’ business practices have aided and abetted firearms trafficking to the cartels, proximately harming the Mexican government. Accordingly, it reversed the district court’s holding that the PLCAA bars Mexico’s common law claims.

In appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, the gun manufacturers argue that the theory of aiding and abetting has been rejected in case law and emphasize the distinction between active complicity and passive conduct. They further contend that even if a company has extensive commercial activity, it is a not an active participant in downstream criminal acts unless the company engages in some other “affirmative misconduct” in promoting those acts.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 4, 2024. The justices have agreed to consider the following questions:

(1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.

Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. A decision is expected before the end of the term in June/July 2025.