This week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a case between Mexico and U.S. gun manufacturers. However, the result may have more impact on U.S. citizens wanting to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the guns used in mass shootings.
This case is also significant due to a war of words between the U.S. and Mexico over tariffs and drug trafficking cartels. President Donald Trump accuses Mexico of not doing enough to prevent drug trafficking. Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo accuses the U.S. gun industry of enabling cartels by supplying them with high-powered weapons through an “iron river.” An iron river refers to the practice of smuggling U.S. firearms to Mexico.
According to former Mexico President Lopez Obrador, during his time in office, 75% of the 50,000 confiscated guns were from the United States. Now, the Mexican government is looking to hold gun stores and large U.S. gun manufacturers liable for cartel gun violence in the same way parents of victims sued Remington Arms for their role in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. That case settled out of Court for $73 million.
First Circuit Sides With Mexico
Mexico’s lawsuit focuses on the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun makers and sellers from liability for crimes using the guns made or sold. The exceptions to this federal law are negligent entrustment, defective products, or violation of laws. The parents of Sandy Hook victims sued Remington for violating Connecticut law relating to the sale and marketing of firearms.
Mexico sued seven firearm manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2021 for knowingly aiding and abetting illegal gun activity in its business practices. Although the Court ruled that Mexico could bring the lawsuit in the U.S. and that the PLCAA applied to lawsuits brought by foreign governments, the case was dismissed under the PLCAA’s application.
However, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision based on a predicate statute exception. The predicate statute exception allows lawsuits when a manufacturer knowingly violates a state or federal statute in the sale or marketing, and the violation was the proximate cause of the harm.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos on March 4, 2025.
Mexico Argues Gun Manufacturers Knowingly Targeted Cartels
Mexico claims that the U.S. gun manufacturers knowingly violated U.S. law by aiding and abetting straw purchasers engaged in gun trafficking and designing and marketing guns for the Mexican cartel market. They claim manufacturers were aware of how a small number of dealers sell a large number of guns. Mexico further argues that the guns were designed to appeal to the cartel market. The firearms were military grade, had serial numbers that could be rubbed off, and were given names such as “El Jefe” and “Zapata.” Many of these guns were found at cartel crime scenes or carried by captured cartel members. Mexico claims that the gun manufacturer should be liable for the foreseeable risk of harm based on their actions.
Is 'Mere Knowledge' Aiding and Abetting?
U.S. gun manufacturers argued that mere knowledge of illegal activity is not enough for aiding and abetting. If they sell a gun lawfully to a gun dealer and the gun dealer sells the gun lawfully to someone who is a “straw purchaser,” they cannot be held liable for criminal acts if the firearm is later smuggled to Mexico and used by cartels.
They rejected the claim that the guns were designed and marketed to cartels and argued that they had an appeal to American gun enthusiasts.
Unsurprisingly, gun manufacturers also claimed protection on Second Amendment grounds. They claim that holding gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for Mexican drug cartel violence will bankrupt the American firearms industry and effectively undermine the Second Amendment. If there are no gun manufacturers, then people asserting their right to bear arms may not have arms to bear.
The Effect of a Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court must decide whether to overturn the ruling allowing the Mexican government to sue the gun companies and send it back to a lower court. The Court is expected to release its decision in May 2025. Most news outlets and legal analysts covering the case — including us here at FindLaw — felt the justices appeared to view the arguments of the gun manufacturers favorably.
If the Supreme Court finds that gun manufacturers are liable for Mexican cartel gun violence, that supports U.S. citizens’ claims against gun manufacturers for gun violence. This could be a welcome outcome for gun control groups.
If (and more likely) the Supreme Court sides with gun manufacturers under the PLCAA, it will be more challenging to hold gun manufacturers accountable for crimes as a result of their sales and marketing. This result will be favored by gun rights’ advocates, and gun manufacturers and distributors.
Related Resources
- Gun Laws (Findlaw Learn About The Law)
- Product Liability and Guns (Find Law Learn About The Law)
- California's New Gun Laws Attempt To Hold Industry Liable (FindLaw Courtside)
