SCOTUS to Hear Case From Mexican Gov't Against Top US Gun Makers for Abetting Trafficking

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 4 agreed to hear a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against a group of gun manufacturers and one gun distributor for their role in aiding the trafficking of guns into Mexico. The lawsuit accuses the gun makers of marketing, distributing, selling and designing guns in ways that knowingly arm Mexican drug cartels through corrupt gun dealers and illegal sales practices (Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Sup. Ct. # 23-1141).

The lawsuit was originally filed in the Massachusetts U.S. District Court in 2021 against the largest U.S. gun manufacturers (see 2108050037). The trial court dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields firearm makers from liability for the criminal or unlawful use of their products. The law says a gun manufacturer or distributor won't face civil liability if it complies with the vast array of "federal, state, and local 'laws' specifically regulating the sale and marketing of firearms."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the dismissal, finding that the lawsuit fell under an exception in the law. The court said the Mexican government's complaint plausibly alleged that the firearm companies were violating federal law by "aiding and abetting arms trafficking to the cartels," and that the companies' conduct was a "proximate cause" of the injuries suffered as a result of cartel violence.

The gun manufacturers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari following this decision, arguing that "Mexico’s suit has no business in an American court." The companies said the Act bars civil suits looking to hold gun makers accountable for the harms "stemming from the downstream criminal misuse of their products." The brief said it's "nearly impossible to imagine a suit that is more clearly barred by PLCAA than this one."

A central issue to the gun makers' appeal is the issue of proximate cause, which is a statutory requirement mandating a showing that the alleged action by the defendants results in the expected type of harm suffered in Mexico. The petition said the Mexican government's claim of proximate cause "rests on an eight-step Rube Goldberg" line of actions that starts with the sale of firearms in the U.S. and ends with the "harms the drug cartels inflict on the Mexican government."

The other primary issue raised by the gun manufacturers is whether the production and sale of firearms in the U.S. amounts to "aiding and abetting" firearm trafficking since the weapons companies "allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked."

In response, the Mexican government said, far from alleging that the U.S. companies merely have some surface level knowledge of their weapons being trafficked, it's actually alleging that the companies "deliberately chose to engage in unlawful affirmative conduct to profit off the criminal market for their products." The Mexican government said the gun makers' "aiding-and-abetting argument rests on what the First Circuit accurately described as a 'fundamental misunderstanding of the complaint.'"

The case drew amicus briefs from a host of gun rights groups, conservative legal foundations and Republican-led state legislatures.