Supreme Court Tackles Mexico’s Lawsuit Against US Gun Makers

Supreme Court justices appeared to express skepticism toward Mexico’s unprecedented $10 billion lawsuit against American gun manufacturers, questioning whether U.S. companies should be held liable for cartel violence across the border.

Key Insights

Mexico’s lawsuit seeks to hold U.S. gun manufacturers accountable for weapons trafficked across the border, marking the first Supreme Court case addressing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
Justices, including conservative and liberal members, heard arguments on the case and questioned Mexico’s strategy of targeting manufacturers rather than specific dealers who sold weapons later used in crimes.
Between 200,000-500,000 American-made firearms are estimated to be trafficked into Mexico annually, with 70% of illegal guns seized in Mexico originating from U.S. sales.
The Court’s ruling, expected by late June, could significantly impact future litigation against gun manufacturers and the interpretation of federal immunity protections.

Mexico’s Unprecedented Legal Challenge

The Supreme Court is reviewing a case that could redefine the legal landscape for gun manufacturers in America. Mexico filed a $10 billion lawsuit against major U.S. firearms companies, including Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, claiming they knowingly design and market weapons that end up in the hands of Mexican cartels. The case marks the first time the nation’s highest court will interpret the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law shielding gun manufacturers from civil liability when their products are criminally misused.

Mexico’s legal strategy hinges on an exception to PLCAA allowing lawsuits when manufacturers knowingly violate laws that result in harm. The federal district court initially dismissed the case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit revived it, ruling that Mexico’s claims might fit within that exception. The central argument focuses on whether gun companies should be held liable for the actions of downstream dealers who supply cartels with weapons.

Supreme Court gravitates toward gun industry in bid to end Mexico lawsuit https://t.co/ytLnKACiCB

— The Hill (@thehill) March 4, 2025

Supreme Court Skepticism

During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed doubts about Mexico’s legal approach. Justice Clarence Thomas directly questioned how Mexico’s lawsuit differs from those that prompted PLCAA’s passage in the first place. Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that Congress may have intended to prevent courts from regulating the gun industry through litigation. Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that Mexico hadn’t named specific retailers who sold the weapons, focusing instead on manufacturers.

“I’m just wondering whether the PLCAA statute itself is telling us that we don’t want the courts to be the ones to be crafting remedies that amount to regulation on this industry. That was really the point of the entire thing,” Jackson said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised broader economic concerns, suggesting that Mexico’s legal theory could have far-reaching consequences beyond the firearms industry. He indicated that manufacturers of many ordinary products know some consumers will misuse them, from pharmaceuticals to automobiles, making Mexico’s standard potentially dangerous for American business interests at large.

Border Security and Political Context

The case arrives at a politically sensitive moment for U.S.-Mexico relations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates between 200,000 and 500,000 American-made firearms are trafficked into Mexico annually. Government data indicates more than 70% of illegal guns seized in Mexico between 2013 and 2018 originated from U.S. sales. Mexico has stringent gun control laws, with only one legal gun store in the entire country, operated by the military, making illegal importation the primary source of firearms.

The case, officially titled Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141), has attracted substantial interest from both sides of the gun debate. The firearms industry is backed by gun rights organizations, Republican lawmakers, and 27 Republican state attorneys general. Mexico’s position is supported by Democratic members of Congress, gun control advocacy groups, and 16 Democratic state attorneys general. The Court’s eventual ruling could influence not only international liability cases but also domestic litigation related to mass shootings and gun violence.