...
By Natalie Venegas and Gabe Whisnant
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised on Tuesday to block a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico against major U.S. firearm manufacturers, accusing them of contributing to cartel-related gun violence.
Why It Matters
The arguments come during a tense period for U.S.-Mexico relations as President Donald Trump's long-threatened tariffs on Mexico and Canada take effect. Trump has said that the tariffs are intended, in part, to pressure the two neighboring countries to intensify efforts against fentanyl trafficking and curb illegal immigration.
Read More on U.S.
Tariffs are taxes on imported goods, typically paid by the importing businesses, which can then pass costs onto consumers through higher prices. The importing business could be any American company that purchases goods from foreign suppliers and brings them into the country for resale, manufacturing, or distribution. Tariffs are often used to protect domestic industries by making foreign goods more expensive and encouraging consumers to buy locally.
The case is expected to test legislation that shields gun companies from lawsuits, which experts say could lead to many more lawsuits if successful.
...
What To Know
Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism on Tuesday that the claims, that the firearm manufacturers fueled cartel gun violence, could overcome U.S. legal protections.
These protections, particularly the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, largely shield gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used in crimes.
Leading gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, appealed to the court after a lower court allowed the case to proceed under an exception for companies accused of legal violations.
Smith & Wesson, represented by attorney Noel Francisco, argued that Mexico cannot establish a direct link between the companies' business practices and the actions of criminal organizations.
Mexico's attorney, however, argued that the case, which focuses on economic harm tied to gun violence, remains in its early stages and should be allowed to move forward.
During oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns about the broader implications of Mexico's argument, pointing to arguments that many products can misused, and a flood of lawsuits could hurt the U.S. economy.
"That's a real concern, I think, for me, about accepting your theory," he said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that the lawsuit seemed to be aiming for "changes to the firearm industry"—precisely the kind of regulatory impact that the PLCAA was designed to prevent.
Justice Samuel Alito added another dimension to the debate, questioning whether the U.S. could hypothetically sue Mexico for "illegal conduct" within its borders.
The oral arguments come after the legal battle began in 2020 when Mexico first filed its lawsuit. The country, which has only one legal gun store and some of the strictest gun laws in the world, says that 70 percent of the illegal firearms recovered in crimes there originate from the United States.
A federal judge initially dismissed the lawsuit, citing the PLCAA. However, an appeals court revived it, citing an exception that allows lawsuits when companies are accused of knowingly violating the law in their sales or marketing practices. The same exception was invoked in a 2019 lawsuit by victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting that argued the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in that tragedy violated state law.
What People Are Saying
Catherine Stetson, the lawyer arguing for Mexico, on Tuesday: "We are here at the beginning of the beginning of this case. This court need not vouch for Mexico's allegations, but it must assume they are true. Mexico should be given a chance to prove its case."
Noel Francisco, the lawyer arguing for the gun companies, told the justices on Tuesday: "If Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash."
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Catherine Stetson, the lawyer arguing for Mexico on Tuesday: "Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they're going to be misused by some subset of people. They know that to a certainty, that it's going to be pharmaceuticals, cars—what you can name, lots of products. So that's a real concern, I think for me, about accepting your theory of aiding and abetting liability."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court's ruling in the case is expected by late June.
Reporting by the Associated Press contributed to this article.
Update 3/4/25, 4:30 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
Update 3/4/25, 5:10 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines