Supreme Court blocks Mexico’s suit against U.S. gunmakers

The Supreme Court shot down Mexico’s attempt to sue U.S. gun manufacturers for the weapons that have flooded south over the border, saying there’s no proof that the companies acted illegally in selling their firearms.

The court, in a unanimous decision, said a federal law protecting gun makers from lawsuits over misuse of their weapons holds firm.

Mexico had argued that the manufacturers knowingly sold guns to dealers they knew were then selling them to straw purchasers who then trafficked them across the border. Mexico also argued the companies intentionally made their weapons attractive to cartels.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said there’s no doubt U.S. weapons are fueling violence in Mexico.

But she said Mexico failed to prove the companies were knowingly aiding and abetting the supply of weapons, and cannot be held responsible for the cartels’ preferences in weapons.

“The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too,” Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote.

She said Mexico failed in its court filings to show that the manufacturers were the cause of the alleged harm.

“Its complaint does not plausibly allege the kind of ’conscious … and culpable participation in another’s wrongdoing’ needed to make out an aiding-and-abetting charge,” she wrote.

Mexico had sought $10 billion in its lawsuit, accusing American gun companies of helping drug cartels commit crimes south of the U.S. border. The dispute focused on whether the firearm industry remains immune from these types of claims in which its products allegedly are misused.

At issue was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which immunizes firearm manufacturers when their products are used in a crime.

There is an exception to the law, though if a manufacturer “’knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing’ of firearms, and the ’violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.’”

But the court reasoned Mexico did not provide evidence to meet that exception.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote concurring opinions.

Justice Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said a party must show there was an adjudicated violation — not a mere allegation — to qualify for the exception.

“Allowing plaintiffs to proffer mere allegations of a predicate violation would force many defendants in PLCAA litigation to litigate their criminal guilt in a civil proceeding, without the full panoply of protections that we otherwise afford to criminal defendants,” he wrote.

Justice Jackson, a Biden appointee, reasoned that allowing Mexico’s lawsuit to move forward would have upended Congress’ intent for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

“Devoid of nonconclusory allegations about particular statutory violations, Mexico’s lawsuit seeks to turn the courts into common-law regulators. But Congress passed PLCAA to preserve the primacy of the political branches — both state and federal — in deciding which duties to impose on the firearms industry,” she wrote.

This was the first case involving the act to reach the high court. The case is Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico.

A U.S. District Court initially dismissed Mexico’s case, reasoning that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bars lawsuits against gun companies when their products are misused.

But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, letting Mexico’s lawsuit move forward. The gunmakers appealed that move to the justices, who ruled Thursday for them.

The legal conflict before the justices involved gun companies Smith & Wesson, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Glock, Beretta, Witmer Public Safety Group, Interstate Arms, Colt’s Manufacturing, Century International Arms and Sturm, Ruger & Co.

Mexico has strict gun laws and only one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country’s powerful drug cartels.