Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum warned that if the U.S. designates drug cartels as terrorist organizations, Mexico would expand its lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, claiming they contribute to cartel violence by supplying weapons. Mexico argues the majority of firearms linked to cartel violence originate from the U.S. and seeks $10 billion in damages. This legal action coincides with tariff threats from the Trump administration related to drug trafficking. Relations are tense as the U.S. demands Mexico tackle both drug and gun trafficking. The Supreme Court will review this lawsuit’s merits, amidst ongoing debates about gun rights and culpability.
Last month, Mexico’s president issued a caution regarding the Trump administration’s intention to label drug cartels as terrorist organizations.
“If these criminal entities are designated as terrorists, then we’ll have to broaden our U.S. lawsuit,” Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president, stated during a news conference.
She was alluding to a peculiar lawsuit currently pending before the Supreme Court, where Mexico contends that American gun manufacturers have contributed to the illegal trafficking of weapons utilized by the cartels.
This case counters longstanding assertions by President Trump that Mexican cartels are to blame for the increasing violence in the United States. In contrast, Mexico claims that a significant number of firearms found at crime scenes in Mexico originate from the U.S., seeking approximately $10 billion in damages from American gun producers.
The legal conflict arises at a time of escalating tension between the nations, as the Trump administration pressures Mexico to tackle illegal immigration and cartel activities. Tariffs on goods imported from Mexico are slated to take effect on Tuesday—coinciding with the Supreme Court’s review of the guns lawsuit.
President Trump has pointed to drug trafficking from Mexico as a significant factor in deciding to impose tariffs. His administration has implemented various measures to combat the cartels, including designating more than six criminal groups as foreign terrorist organizations. This designation could entail penalties, including criminal charges, for entities connected to the cartels, raising concerns from the Mexican government about a potential infringement on Mexico’s sovereignty.
Mexican lawyers assert that U.S. manufacturers and gun retailers are complicit in what they term an “iron river” of firearms flowing into Mexico and arming the cartels. They highlight strict regulations on gun purchases in Mexico, where citizens are prohibited from acquiring the rapid-fire, powerful military-style weapons that cartels prefer, as evidence that as many as half a million firearms are illegally smuggled from the United States into Mexico every year.
“It is significantly easier and more effective to halt the crime gun pipeline at its source and turn off the spigot,” remarked Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, who has a long history of litigating against the gun industry and is involved in this case on behalf of Mexico.
In defense of the gun manufacturers, a coalition of gun advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association, contends that the lawsuit threatens gun rights in the United States.
“Mexico has eradicated its constitutional right to bear arms and now seeks to eradicate America’s,” the N.R.A. declared in a statement supporting the gun manufacturers. “In this regard, Mexico aims to financially dismantle the American firearms industry.”
The Supreme Court may view this case skeptically, given its 6-3 conservative supermajority has worked to bolster gun rights. However, amid Trump’s focus on the nation, this case provides Mexico with a platform to express its counterargument that U.S. gun manufacturers bear some responsibility for cartel violence. Additionally, the Mexican government has filed lawsuits against several gun retailers in Arizona and may broaden its legal actions.
At a recent conference in Latin America, Pablo Arrocha, a legal advisor for Mexico’s foreign ministry, remarked that the two lawsuits filed thus far represent only the initial phase of a wider legal strategy to counteract the influx of guns across the border.
For years, Mexico has urged the United States to take more significant steps to mitigate the trafficking of American-manufactured firearms. When Trump postponed tariffs against Mexico earlier this month, both nations agreed to address their respective issues: Mexican officials committed to working on reducing drug trafficking, while U.S. authorities vowed to tackle gun trafficking.
Recent days have shown signs of improved relations between the two nations, notably with the Mexican government recently dispatching nearly 30 top cartel figures wanted by U.S. authorities. However, inside the White House, Trump’s advisors are divided on whether to implement more rigorous actions in Mexico, including the potential for military strikes against Mexican drug cartels.
A spokesperson from the White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Mexico initially filed lawsuits against multiple gun manufacturers in 2021, claiming that the violence related to cartels was “the foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ intentional actions and business practices.”
A trial court judge dismissed the case, ruling that it was precluded by a 2005 federal statute that limits lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors, offering them immunity from claims brought by the families of those harmed or killed by their weapons.
A unanimous panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston overruled that decision, determining that the lawsuit satisfied the criteria for litigation under a portion of the law that permits actions where conscious violations of firearms regulations directly cause the injuries to the plaintiff.
Gun manufacturers have requested the Supreme Court to hear the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141. Lawyers for Smith & Wesson contend that Mexico has proposed a convoluted legal theory that resembles an “eight-step Rube Goldberg machine, beginning with the lawful production and sale of firearms in the United States and culminating in the harms that drug cartels inflict on the Mexican government.”
The attorneys argue that the gun manufacturers acted legally within the U.S. and should not be held accountable for the illegal actions of cartels in Mexico. They referenced a 2023 Supreme Court ruling in which it was determined that social media companies could not be liable for aiding terrorism due to hosting posts from ISIS.
A trial court judge dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit against six of the defendants on separate grounds, leaving the Supreme Court to decide only on the claims against Smith & Wesson, a firearm manufacturer, and Interstate Arms, a wholesaler.
Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.