WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared likely to halt a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico against major American gun manufacturers. The lawsuit accuses these companies of fueling gun violence through cartels. During the session, justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum expressed doubt regarding whether the claims could bypass U.S. laws that largely protect gun manufacturers from legal accountability when their weapons are utilized in crimes.
Major manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, focused on appealing to the justices after a lower court permitted the lawsuit to proceed under an exception for cases where gun companies allegedly breach the law. Mexico’s legal representative insisted that the suit, highlighting economic damage connected to gun violence, should continue in its early litigation stages.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns regarding the broader implications of a successful suit, cautioning that it might lead to exploiting various products, from sports equipment to pharmaceuticals, thereby negatively impacting the American economy. “That’s a real concern, I think, for me, about accepting your theory,” he commented.
Moreover, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked that the lawsuit seemed to aim for industry changes similar to those the protective law intends to hinder. Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, questioned whether states in the U.S. could potentially launch legal action against Mexico over “illegal conduct” linked to its territory.
The arguments were presented amidst the backdrop of President Donald Trump enforcing long-threatened tariffs against Mexico and Canada. The tariffs were part of a strategy to press these neighboring nations into combating fentanyl trafficking and curbing illegal immigration.
Originating four years prior, Mexico’s high-stakes lawsuit targeted some renowned gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, and Glock Inc. Despite Mexico’s stringent gun laws and the existence of a single government-sanctioned gun store, drug cartels routinely smuggle thousands of firearms across the border annually.
According to Mexican authorities, at least 70% of these smuggled firearms come from the U.S. The lawsuit alleges that these companies were aware their products were being purchased and smuggled into Mexico by traffickers, choosing to exploit this lucrative market.
The gun manufacturers deny these allegations, stressing that Mexico fails to conclusively demonstrate their role in the widespread misuse of their products for criminal activities. Initially, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit under a 2005 statute shielding gun manufacturers from most civil lawsuits. However, an appellate court revived it, citing an exception where companies knowingly infringe laws in their marketing or sales.
This exception has been highlighted in other legal contexts. Notably, the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre invoked it, arguing that the rifle manufacturer breached state laws in marketing strategies for the AR-15, the weapon used in the tragedy that claimed 26 lives, including 20 first-graders.
The Supreme Court’s anticipated decision, due by late June, could potentially impact similar lawsuits related to mass shootings. Nonetheless, this particular concern didn’t dominate the oral argument discussions. Smith & Wesson attorney Noel Francisco asserted that these exceptions don’t pertain to the case as Mexico hasn’t proven the companies’ practices directly contribute to cartel-related violence.