Mexico Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Let It Sue Gunmakers Over Cartel Violence

Mexico Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Allow Lawsuit Against American Gunmakers Over Cartel Violence

Mexico has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow its $10 billion lawsuit against several major American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. The lawsuit alleges that these companies market and design firearms specifically for drug cartels, fueling violence and crime across Mexico. This legal battle comes at a time when U.S.-Mexico relations have been tense, with President Trump pressuring Mexico to address issues like migration and drug trafficking.

The Lawsuit’s Claims

In 2021, Mexico filed the lawsuit, claiming that U.S. gun manufacturers are indirectly responsible for the deaths of Mexican citizens—children, judges, journalists, police, and others—by selling firearms that end up in the hands of cartels. According to Mexican officials, 70% to 90% of firearms found at crime scenes in Mexico are made in the United States. The country argues that while there is only one gun store in Mexico, its streets are flooded with American-made weapons.

The case does not involve the Second Amendment but has garnered significant attention from both gun control and gun rights groups. Advocates for gun control argue that the case could set a dangerous precedent that allows gunmakers to avoid accountability for the damage their products cause.

David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told CNN, “The gun industry defendants are trying to use this case to rewrite the law and dramatically expand their immunity to include actions that break the law.”

Gun Rights Groups Push Back

Opponents of the lawsuit, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), argue that it is an attempt to undermine the American firearms industry. They claim that the lawsuit seeks to make it easier to sue gun manufacturers, circumventing a 2005 law that shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed with their products.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act provides gunmakers with immunity, except in cases where there is a direct connection between the harm caused and the manufacturer’s actions. The NRA has criticized Mexico’s suit, claiming that the country is attempting to “extinguish” the American right to bear arms.

The Core of Mexico’s Argument

Mexico accuses U.S. gunmakers of facilitating the trafficking of firearms to cartels by selling weapons to dealers who supply criminal organizations. The country also claims that the gun manufacturers have intentionally resisted making changes that would make firearms easier to trace, such as modifying serial numbers to prevent tampering.

Mexico further asserts that some of the guns marketed by these companies are designed specifically for gangs, citing products like the Super “El Jefe” pistol, which the country claims are targeted for sale to criminal organizations.

Hudson Munoz, executive director of Guns Down America, stated, “This case is not about the Second Amendment—it’s about whether an industry can facilitate illegal arms trafficking, destabilize a neighboring country, and face zero consequences.”

The Legal Journey: From Lower Courts to the Supreme Court

A federal district court initially sided with the gun manufacturers, dismissing the case. However, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Mexico’s lawsuit could proceed, allowing the case to move forward. The gun companies have since appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear the case.

A Skeptical Supreme Court

The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is expected to be skeptical of Mexico’s claims. The Court’s 2021 decision in Twitter v. Taamneh could set a precedent in this case. In that instance, the Court ruled that social media platforms like Twitter could not be held liable for hosting content that allegedly helped ISIS recruit members, since the connection between the platform’s actions and the attack was too indirect.

Gun manufacturers are making similar arguments, claiming that they have no control over what buyers do with the guns they sell. “This court has repeatedly held that it requires a direct connection between a defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury,” the gun companies wrote in their appeal.

However, the appeals court that ruled in Mexico’s favor stated that the gun manufacturers’ conduct might be more directly involved in fueling the illegal gun market than social media companies’ actions in the Twitter case. The three-judge panel noted that the manufacturers may not be passive observers but active participants in a supply chain that ends with illegal firearms being trafficked to Mexico.

What’s at Stake

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mexico, the lawsuit could move forward, potentially holding U.S. gun manufacturers accountable for their role in the cross-border arms trade. A decision against Mexico could provide gun companies with greater immunity, reinforcing the protections they already enjoy under the 2005 law.

This case highlights the complex intersection of U.S. gun laws, international relations, and the devastating impact of gun violence on Mexico’s security. As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed, the outcome will have significant implications for both the American firearms industry and the future of cross-border legal actions.

Source