The Supreme Court gravitated toward the American firearm industry Tuesday in its fight to end a $10 billion lawsuit brought by the Mexican government over claims the gun makers are fueling cartel violence.
The case has become a major battle over the scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which has provided broad immunity to gun makers for two decades despite gun control activists’ attempt to repeal it.
At oral arguments Tuesday, the justices posed piercing questions to Mexico’s attorney about claims that the country’s lawsuit falls under an exception to the 2005 law, raising concerns that accepting that position would cause a flood of litigation against the gun industry.
“How is your suit different from the types of suits that prompted the passage of PLCAA,” asked Justice Clarence Thomas.
It wasn’t only the court’s conservatives, like Thomas, who pressed Mexico.
“I’m just wondering whether the PLCAA statue itself is telling us that we don’t want the courts to be the ones to be crafting remedies that amount to regulation on this industry. That was really the point of the entire thing,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s three Democratic appointees.
“And so to the extent that we’re now reading an exception to allow the very thing that the statute seems to preclude, I’m concerned about that,” she continued.
Mexico originally sued seven American firearms manufacturers and one wholesaler in 2021, alleging they aided and abetted violence in Mexico by not doing more stop their guns from falling into cartels’ hands. Most of the companies have since been dismissed from the lawsuit on other grounds, but two remain.
The companies appealed to the justices after a lower court found Mexico’s lawsuit is covered by a narrow exception to PLCAA, which permits lawsuits when a company “knowingly violated” firearms laws and the violation proximately harmed the plaintiff.
“Petitioners’ arguments would rewrite PLCAA and proximate cause law far beyond this case,” Catherine Stetson, who represented Mexico, said at Tuesday’s arguments.
Though everyone agrees some guns have ultimately turned up at Mexican crime scenes, several justices raised concerns about a lack of specificity in the lawsuit.
“You haven’t sued any of the retailers that were the most proximate cause of the harm,” noted Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative nominated to the court by President Trump.
“What you don’t have is particular dealers, right?” asked Justice Elena Kagan, another of the court’s liberals. “It’s a pretty — there’s a lot of dealers, and you’re just saying some of them do. But which some of them? I mean, who are they aiding and abetting in this complaint?”
Mexico doesn’t allege the companies were aware of any particular unlawful sale, but the lawsuit claims the industry is liable because of downstream dealers making illegal sales that end up in Mexico. The companies cast Mexico’s argument as an eight-step causal chain, insisting it is too attenuated to claim the exception.
“With respect, there’s not a single case in history that comes close to that,” said Noel Francisco, who served as solicitor general during the first Trump administration and represents the firearms companies.
The firearms companies are backed by gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), various Republican lawmakers and 27 Republican state attorneys general. Mexico, meanwhile, is backed by various Democratic members of Congress, gun control groups and 16 Democratic state attorneys general.
A decision in the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, is expected by early summer.
