On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments from opposing attorneys in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, a civil suit in which Mexico—with the help of U.S. gun-control proponents—is suing American gun companies for $10 billion because of violence committed by Mexican drug cartels on Mexican citizens.
This case is so obviously founded upon anti-gun politics that, in an amicus brief to the Court on the case, the NRA states, “Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s.”
Gun-control groups and politicians who embrace gun bans and other anti-gun efforts are supporting Mexico’s suit.
The politics of the anti-Second Amendment groups and individuals supporting this lawsuit are so clear that the justices began by attempting to determine what law or statute the American companies had allegedly broken.
This led to legal discussion on a “predicate exception” to a 2005 law—the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)—that specifically bars frivolous suits that attempt to hold a lawful manufacturer, distributor or seller of a firearm responsible if that product was later used in a criminal manner by a third party.
The attorney representing gun makers, Noel Francisco, pointed out early on that 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 [according to this illogical deduction’] Budweiser [would be] liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”
As the hearing went on, some of the justices echoed this concern.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, asked Catherine Stetson, the lawyer arguing for Mexico, to address the argument by the gun companies that Mexico’s theory of liability risked threatening the entire U.S. economy.
“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 … 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,” said Kavanaugh.
Stetson then argued that all the justices needed to do is decide whether the case can proceed. This point exposed the real purpose of this case, as Stetson said, “We are 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.”
In other words, the purpose of this case—just as were the frivolous lawsuits before Congress passed the PLCAA—is to bleed gun companies of every dollar they can.
But even the justice nominated by former President Joe Biden (D) had issues with this case. As such, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that Mexico was seeking relief that went beyond the power of U.S. courts to authorize.
“All of the things that you asked for in this lawsuit [such as the firearm industry’s distribution and marketing practices] would amount to different kinds of regulatory constraints that I’m thinking Congress didn’t want the courts to be the ones to impose,” said Jackson to Stetson.
In this line of questioning, Justice Samuel Alito pressed Stetson on whether the legal theory presented by the Mexican government in the case could be used against it in other hypothetical litigation.
“There are Americans who think that Mexican government officials are contributing to a lot of illegal conduct here, so suppose that one of the 50 U.S. states sued for aiding and abetting within the state’s borders that causes the state to incur law-enforcement costs, welfare costs, other costs,” Alito said to Stetson. “Would your client be willing to litigate that case in the courts of the United States?”
Stetson dodged this direct question. but kept taking the legal discussion in a direction that, though no one specifically acknowledged this, actually indicts the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), as that agency is able to investigate
The Mexican government wants to use this lawsuit, in part, to point the blame for the actions of its violent criminals at U.S. gun manufacturers; rather than accept responsibility for the country’s own failures when it comes to combating violent crime within its borders. American gun-control advocates are more than happy to help Mexico in the hopes that this lawsuit will drain the resources of, and perhaps even bankrupt, American gun companies.
This lawsuit from Mexico was first filed in Boston in 2021. U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor sided with the gun companies and threw out the lawsuit in 2022. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed Saylor’s decision in January 2024 and ruled that the suit could proceed.
A ruling on this case from the U.S. Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.
