WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is set to listen to arguments in a significant $10 billion lawsuit initiated by Mexico against leading American firearm manufacturers. The case alleges that these manufacturers’ practices have instigated gun violence by cartels. The defendant companies deny these accusations and have appealed for the Supreme Court’s intervention to dismiss the lawsuit, which was previously allowed to proceed despite U.S. legal protections for gun makers against such lawsuits.
The forthcoming court decision could also influence the legal strategy leveraged by families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Those families managed to secure a $73 million settlement from Remington, setting a precedent for legal accountability. Interestingly, these proceedings coincide with the initiation of President Donald Trump’s long-discussed tariffs against Mexico and Canada. This move has unsettled global markets, suggesting the possibility of expensive retaliations.
Why has Mexico chosen this legal route? The country is well-known for its stringent gun regulations, boasting only a single store authorized to sell firearms legally. However, a significant number of weapons, predominantly from the U.S., are reportedly smuggled in by Mexico’s notorious drug cartels. The Mexican government claims that about 70% of those arms have U.S. origins. They argue that American companies were aware that some weapons would end up with traffickers smuggling them south and opted to benefit from these sales.
The lawsuit targets major industry players including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, and Glock. Despite still being in preliminary phases, if the court sides with Mexico, the government will need to substantiate their allegations. The gun manufacturers dispute the claims, contending there’s no evidence to suggest industry complicity in trafficking, and they reject Mexico’s statistics on the origins of these firearms. They assert that the responsibility for enforcing law and combatting crime lies with the Mexican government, not with U.S. manufacturers.
Under existing U.S. legislation, the gun industry is mostly insulated from civil lawsuits related to crimes committed with firearms, though Mexico argues this protection does not extend to incidents that occur outside the United States. Currently, the manufacturers are appealing for the Supreme Court to reverse a decision by a lower court which allowed proceedings to continue. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that a specific exception to this legal shield could apply when firearm companies are accused of knowingly violating the law.
Such exceptions have been considered in other cases as well. For instance, Sandy Hook victims advocated that this exception applied to their lawsuit because the gun maker violated state law in marketing the AR-15 rifle utilized in the 2012 shooting, which tragically resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six adults. Although the Supreme Court chose not to hear that case, the resulting $73 million settlement was hailed by the families as a catalyst for improved safety and accountability. Depending on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the legal avenue could become more restrictive or inaccessible for similar future claims.
