SCOTUS Set for Oral Arguments in Mexico’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gunmakers

Even if the Supreme Court takes no action on the Maryland “assault weapon” and Rhode Island “large capacity” magazine bans that will once again be heard in conference tomorrow, the Second Amendment will be front and center before the justices next week. 

We’ll learn the results of this week’s conference on Monday, and I’m still keeping my fingers crossed that it will include grants to both Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha. On Tuesday, March 4, however, the Court is guaranteed to take up an issue that could have a major impact on our Second Amendment rights and the U.S. firearms industry when it hears oral arguments in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico.

Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against many major gunmakers was tossed out by a U.S. District Court judge in Boston a couple of years ago, who ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precluded the litigation from moving forward. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reinstated the lawsuit after ruling that the PLCAA doesn’t apply because Mexico claims that the companies’ business practices have “aided and abetted” firearms trafficking to the cartels and have caused “proximate harm” to the Mexican government. 

The First Circuit remanded the case back to Judge Dennis Saylo, who once again tossed out most of the complaints last August, but the gun companies had also continued their appeal of the First Circuit decision in the meantime, and the Supreme Court granted review of the case last October. 

At issue is whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of those alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico and whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking; with Mexico alleging that gun makers know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked, and are therefore tacitly arming the cartels. 

In court filings, the manufacturers have challenged Mexico’s allegations that they were aiding and abetting the illegal sale of their weapons in violation of US federal law. They have pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that shielded Twitter from a lawsuit alleging it aided and abetted terrorism by hosting tweets from the terrorist group ISIS.

“In its zeal to attack the firearms industry, Mexico seeks to raze bedrock principles of American law that safeguard the whole economy,” the manufacturers wrote in a November 2024 brief.

A second lawsuit, filed by Mexico in October 2022 in an Arizona court against five stores that sell guns, is in the evidence-gathering stage, according to [Pablo] Arrocha. Mexico accuses them of negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment.

According to the ATF, the Arizona to Mexico gun trafficking pipeline is second only to the illicit firearms trade between Texas and Mexico.

The legal advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that both lawsuits are moving forward and that there are scenarios for any type of outcome.

“This is the beginning, and this is the tip of the spear of something that can allow for much broader litigation strategies in the future,” he said at the forum.

It’s hard to imagine a broader litigation strategy than what Mexico and its allies in the gun control lobby have already laid out. Mexico’s argument is essentially that the normal business practices (and our right to keep and bear arms) is fueling cartel violence south of the border, disregarding the government corruption that’s diverted legally-purchased firearms into cartel hands and the fact that any gun traffickers sending U.S. guns south of the border are violating both U.S. and Mexico law. Frankly, if anyone is “aiding and abetting” the cartels its the Mexican government itself, which has adopted a “hugs, not bullets” strategy of co-existing with the cartels under both the previous administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador and current President Clauida Sheinbaum. 

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was meant to stop junk lawsuits like this from moving forward in the courts, and if SCOTUS sides with the Mexican government it will essentially render the PLCAA toothless; fueling a surge in similar lawsuits from other countries and anti-gun strongholds here in the United States. We won’t get a decision from the Supreme Court until later this spring or early summer, but next Tuesday is going to be the most critical moment for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act since it was enacted 20 years ago.