In America: Will US Gun Manufacturers Have To Pay Mexico Billions In Damages?
Steve Prezant
In April 2024, the Mexican government took a bold step by filing a lawsuit against seven of the largest firearm manufacturers in the United States: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.; Beretta U.S.A. Corp.; Glock, Inc.; Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. (doing business as Interstate Arms); Century International Arms, Inc.; and Colt’s Manufacturing Company, LLC.
This unprecedented legal action seeks to hold these companies accountable for the violence perpetrated by Mexican drug cartels using US-made weapons. The case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, has now reached the US Supreme Court, which heard arguments on March 4, 2025. The lawsuit also highlights the cross-border violence surrounding gang activities involved in drug and human trafficking cartels.
The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts, demands billions of dollars in damages and calls for an end to the marketing and trafficking of illegal guns to Mexico. The Mexican government alleges that these gun manufacturers deliberately design and market their firearms as military-style weapons, knowing that this makes them appealing to drug cartels. They claim that the manufacturers' distribution system facilitates an illegal market for these guns in Mexico. A report by Stop US Arms to Mexico suggests that more than 50,000 firearms are trafficked out of the US, with a majority going to Mexico.
What did the U.S. Political Class Say?
The lawsuit's filing elicited strong reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy expressed support for Mexico's actions, stating, “PLCAA has largely shielded gun manufacturers from being held accountable for the senseless and preventable loss of lives by their weapons, but Congress did include important exceptions in PLCAA. We need to repeal this law altogether, but until we can do that, we’re hopeful that the Supreme Court doesn’t render the exceptions meaningless.” His words highlights the crux of the issue, whether or not the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005 extends to Mexico, and if so, why?
On the other hand, Republican Attorney General of Montana, Austin Knudsen, wrote to a lower court in 2024, “Here, the activists even had Mexico sue American gun manufacturers for crime problems resulting from Mexico’s policy choices,” when talking about why the lawsuit was filed by Mexico. This amicus brief was co-signed by 25 others, including several Republican Attorneys General, Republican senators, and prominent members of the lobby group, the National Rifle Association (NRA). The firearm manufacturing industry spends nearly $13 million annually on lobbying efforts
The Importance of the Supreme Court Ruling
The ruling, expected in June, is poised to have far-reaching implications. At the heart of the matter is whether US gun manufacturers can be held liable for the actions of third parties who misuse their products. The (PLCAA) generally shields gun manufacturers from such lawsuits, but Mexico argues that their case falls under an exception to this law. Mexico believes their proximity to the US and the direct impact of US-made guns on cartel violence in their country constitute an extenuating circumstance that allows them to bypass existing PLCAA precedent.
During the oral arguments, Noel Francisco, representing the gun manufacturers, emphasized that Congress intended the PLCAA to "prohibit lawsuits just like this one" to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans. In contrast, Catherine Stetson, representing Mexico, argued that the PLCAA was not meant to shield gun manufacturers from liability when they knowingly violate federal laws by aiding and abetting illegal sales.
The Broader Impact of Gun Overproduction
This case highlights a critical issue: the overproduction of guns by American companies and its adverse effects both domestically and internationally. According to a federal appeals court, the defendants in this case produce more than 68% of the US guns trafficked into Mexico, amounting to between 342,000 and 597,000 guns each year. The United States has over 466 million civilian-owned firearms, with approximately 13.4 million guns manufactured annually.
Key Arguments from the Court Transcript
The Supreme Court justices grappled with two main questions: whether the gun manufacturers had aided and abetted violations of gun laws and whether their conduct caused Mexico's problems. Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed skepticism about the aiding and abetting claims, noting that it isn't enough for the gun makers to know they were facilitating violations; they had to intend to do so. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether Mexico had provided enough details in its complaint to move forward.
Chief Justice John Roberts said, “…At some point, the proximate cause lines that you draw really can't bear the weight of the ultimate result,” asking S&W’s attorneys to ignore the specifics of how many guns, but to consider the impact that any potential gun trafficking may have. Politics aside, the liberal and conservative appointed justices largely seemed to agree that Mexico simply does not have the requisite precedent to sue American gun manufacturers, under existing PLCAA protections.
Historically, the PLCAA has provided robust protection to gun manufacturers. However, Mexico's lawsuit draws parallels to past cases where companies were held liable for knowingly supplying products to criminals. For instance, in Direct Sales Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court held a company liable for targeted sales to criminals. Direct Sales Co. faced significant penalties, including fines and restrictions on their business operations. Mexico argues that their case is similar, as the gun manufacturers allegedly supplied dealers with traceable crime guns and ignored red flags.
Technological Advances and Civilian Use
The rapid advancement of weaponry technology has further complicated the issue. Modern firearms are more powerful and easier to modify, making them highly attractive to criminal organizations. These advanced weapons, designed for military use, pose significant risks when sold to civilians. Critics argue that such weaponry should be restricted to armies and state police forces to prevent misuse and reduce liability.
Opponents of the lawsuit, including many within the political class, argue that American gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the actions of criminals. They point to the significant influence of the gun lobby in Congress, which has spent millions to protect the interests of gun manufacturers. In the 2024 election cycle alone, gun rights groups spent nearly $13 million on lobbying efforts.