The Supreme Court appeared skeptical on Tuesday that the Mexican government could legally sue U.S. gun makers over claims that they share the blame for violence by drug cartels.
Mexico argued that the American gun industry bore responsibility for the violence by creating and selling firearms that made their way across the border into the hands of criminal gangs. Arguing that the violence was a direct result of the gun makers’ actions, a lawyer for Mexico told the justices that the country should be able to sue despite a 2005 law that prohibited most lawsuits against gun manufacturers for injuries caused by firearms.
But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh appeared to sum up doubts about the lawsuit by asking about the broader implications if Mexico succeeded in arguing that manufacturers acting lawfully could be held responsible for illegal behavior by cartels, an outcome that he worried could have “destructive effects on the American economy.”
“Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they’re going to be misused by some subset of people,” Justice Kavanaugh said, citing carmakers and pharmaceutical companies.
The unusual lawsuit came before the justices at a time of heightened tension between the two countries. Earlier in the day, the Trump administration put stiff U.S. tariffs into effect against Mexico. President Trump has cited drug trafficking from Mexico into the United States as one of the reasons for his decision to impose trade penalties and has sought to designate cartels as terrorist groups.
Filed in 2021, the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141, has allowed the Mexican government an avenue for a counterargument — that U.S. gun companies share in the blame for violence by drug cartels because their guns make their way to Mexican crime scenes. Mexico asked for some $10 billion in damages. A trial court judge dismissed Mexico’s case against six of the defendants on other grounds, leaving the Supreme Court’s decision in the case to apply to claims against Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer, and Interstate Arms, a wholesaler.
Access to guns is tightly controlled in Mexico, and it is nearly impossible for civilians to legally obtain the kinds of military-style weapons favored by the cartels. Lawyers for Mexico have cited statistics showing that a majority of guns from Mexican crime scenes — between 70 and 90 percent — come from the United States. They also contend that gun dealers in the states that border Mexico sell twice as many weapons as dealers in other parts of the United States.
Noel J. Francisco, a lawyer representing the gun industry who also served as solicitor general during the first Trump administration, argued that the industry was specifically insulated against such lawsuits by the 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
The legislation, which was passed after a growing number of lawsuits aimed to hold the gun industry liable in domestic mass shootings, prohibits many types of suits against gun manufacturers and sellers.
“Congress’s entire purpose was to prohibit lawsuits just like this one,” Mr. Francisco said. “It was trying to prohibit lawsuits that had been brought by the city of Chicago, the city of Cincinnati, the city of Boston, on theories and seeking relief, exactly like this one.”
But the law includes a carve out for claims to proceed if plaintiffs can show that their injuries were directly caused by knowing violations of firearms laws. Mexico argued that its case falls under that exception.
During the argument, Catherine E. Stetson, the lawyer who argued for Mexico, said some U.S. manufacturers have designed specific weapons to appeal to Mexican buyers. In court filings, lawyers for Mexico referred to a special edition .38 pistol engraved with the face of the Mexican revolutionary hero Emiliano Zapata with a quotation that has been attributed to him: “It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.”
“Mexico is not trying to legislate gun use in the United States,” Ms. Stetson said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Mexico’s argument, saying that she read the 2005 law as “about Congress protecting its own prerogative to be the one to regulate this industry.”
Mr. Francisco also pushed back on the idea that selling “a Spanish-named firearm” would bolster claims that U.S. companies could be held liable for violence in Mexico.
“There are, after all, millions of perfectly law-abiding Spanish-speaking Americans in this country that find those firearms very attractive, and making those firearms available cannot possibly cross the line into aiding and abetting liability,” he said.
He said the federal law was aimed not only at shielding the gun industry but also at protecting Second Amendment rights.
“It’s not just about protecting the manufacturers, the distributors, and the retailers, but it’s protecting the right of every American to exercise their right under the Second Amendment to possess and bear firearms,” Mr. Francisco said. “That right is meaningless if there are no manufacturers, retailers and distributors that provide them in the first place.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. referred to the strained relationship between the countries in his questions to a lawyer representing Mexico, saying he wanted to raise “a question that may be on the minds of ordinary Americans,” some of whom believe Mexico is contributing to illegal conduct in the United States.
If Mexico wants access to U.S. courts to argue the country was being hurt by U.S. companies, he asked, would it also agree to suits in which U.S. states argued Mexico should be held responsible for increased law enforcement costs and welfare benefits?
“Would your client be willing to litigate that case in the courts of the United States?” Justice Alito asked.
Ms. Stetson said that kind of suit could violate Mexico’s sovereign immunity.
Justice Alito replied that it appeared Mexico was arguing for a “one-way street” if it wanted to sue gun makers when it would not also agree to be held responsible for “harm” caused in the United States.
The post Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Mexico’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Makers appeared first on New York Times.
