U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Filed by Mexico Against U.S. Firearm Manufacturers
Gun Lawsuit Against Manufacturers Thrown Out by Supreme Court
On a heated Thursday, the Supreme Court tossed out a lawsuit from Mexico, claiming American gun manufacturers should shoulder the responsibility for cartel violence at the Southwest border. With a unanimous decision, the companies were cleared of this suit that could've cost them billions.
Justice Elena Kagan penned the opinion, explaining why the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) didn't allow the suit to proceed. Mexico's lawsuit, as Kagan put it, "does not plausibly allege" that the gunmakers have intentionally supplied guns to dealers involved in unlawful sales to Mexican traffickers.
The gunmakers don't supply dealers directly, Kagan wrote. Instead, they sell firearms to middlemen distributors, which Mexico has never claimed lack independence.
While the justices avoided a broader analysis that could shield the manufacturers further from future litigation, the unanimous ruling probably explains why the court reached consensus.
David Pucino, legal director at gun control group GIFFORDS Law Center, was not disheartened. "Today's decision will end Mexico’s lawsuit against the gun industry, but it does not affect our ability and resolve to hold those who break the law accountable," he stated.
The litigation came at a tricky moment in the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, given President Donald Trump's reliance on Mexico to scale back migrants and drugs flowing north. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, countered an American product contributing to chaos at the border.
Such lawsuits against the gun industry are typically banned by the PLCAA, a law enacted in 2005 that prohibits plaintiffs from suing companies over crimes committed with their products. Mexico attempted to navigate their suit through a narrow exception in the law.
Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and six other US gunmakers for $10 billion in damages, accusing them of designing and marketing their guns specifically for drug cartels. These guns, they claimed, were used in the "killing and maiming" of innocent victims in Mexico. However, a federal district court blocked the suit from progressing, and the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded their lawsuit could proceed. The gun companies appealed to the Supreme Court last spring.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court has also been cautious about allowing people to sue companies for indirect damages in other scenarios. In 2023, the high court rejected a suit from the victim of a 2017 terrorist attack in Turkey, who claimed the social media company (then known as Twitter) contributed to the attack by hosting content linked to ISIS. The court decided the tie between the content and the attack was too tenuous to allow the family to sue.
CNN's Devan Cole contributed to this report.
This story has been updated with additional developments.
Additional Insight:The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was enacted in 2005 to shield the firearms industry from civil lawsuits in U.S. courts for the misuse of guns by others. It provides broad immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. The act has undergone debate, with critics arguing it prevents victims from seeking justice for gun-related violence. The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the broad immunity offered to the gun industry under the PLCAA, further complicating discussions surrounding gun control and violence.
After Mexico's lawsuit against several US gun manufacturers for $10 billion, the Supreme Court found the case inaccurate as it failed to plausibly allege the manufacturers had intentionally supplied guns to dealers involved in unlawful sales to Mexican traffickers. This decision follows the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which prohibits plaintiffs from suing companies over crimes committed with their products, providing the gun industry with broad immunity in such cases.
