In Washington, the Supreme Court is set to deliberate on the fate of a lawsuit brought forth by the Mexican government, aiming to hold U.S. gunmakers accountable for the surge of violence in Mexico, which officials claim can be directly linked to firearms manufactured in the U.S. The justices will hear arguments regarding the gun companies’ plea to dismiss the lawsuit, amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and Mexico following the election of President Donald Trump. The President, in an effort to curb illegal immigration and combat drug trafficking and gang violence, has imposed new tariffs on Mexico and labeled Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has vowed to intensify efforts to combat gun smuggling from the U.S., in response to these measures. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington have introduced legislation aimed at reducing the illegal flow of firearms across the border, estimated to be around 200,000 annually.
In the ongoing lawsuit from 2021, the Mexican government has accused companies like Smith & Wesson and Colt of knowingly supplying firearms to dealers who subsequently sell these weapons, often leading to their recovery at crime scenes in Mexico. Seeking damages of up to $10 billion, Mexico’s legal team argues that gun dealers frequently engage in selling firearms to “straw purchasers” with the intention of trafficking these guns across the border. They assert that certain firearms, such as the Colt handgun dubbed the Super El Jefe, are specifically designed to appeal to members of drug cartels.
The consequences of this alleged gun trafficking, Mexico contends, have been severe, with numerous police officers and military personnel in the country falling victim to gun violence. The lawsuit includes claims of negligence and public nuisance against the gun manufacturers.
The case before the Supreme Court involves two companies, Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, as other manufacturers like Glock and Colt have successfully had claims against them dismissed. Central to the legal dispute is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a U.S. law that limits lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. The gunmakers argue that this law shields them from liability stemming from the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products by third parties, thus warranting the dismissal of the entire lawsuit.
In their legal filings, the gunmakers emphasize that the federal statute offers them protection from liability arising from criminal activities involving their firearms by individuals not associated with the manufacturers. They contend that the Mexico lawsuit is unequivocally precluded by this law.
Mexico’s legal team, however, is focusing on a specific exception to the liability shield, which permits a lawsuit to proceed if a company has knowingly violated gun laws and if this violation contributed to the harm cited in the lawsuit. The gunmakers rebut this argument, stating that Mexico’s claims for liability rely on connecting a lengthy chain of independent third parties, including gun dealers and traffickers, to the defendants.
Initially ruling in favor of the manufacturers, a federal judge saw the case revived by the Boston-based 1st U.S
