The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether Mexico can pursue a $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers for allegedly enabling cartel violence by supplying military-style weapons. The suit, filed in 2021, argues that 70-90% of guns found at Mexican crime scenes come from the U.S. The legal debate centers on a 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from lawsuits, with a previous ruling dismissing Mexico’s case but an appeals court allowing it to proceed. The outcome could impact U.S.-Mexico relations, particularly amid ongoing tensions and trade tariffs.
On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments regarding the Mexican government’s ability to move forward with a $10 billion lawsuit against American firearm manufacturers.
In 2021, Mexico filed a lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers and one distributor, claiming that these companies exacerbated violence along the border by supplying an “iron river” of military-grade weapons to cartels.
This unusual legal challenge arrives at a time of increasing tension between the two nations, particularly with tariffs initiated by the Trump administration set to take effect on Tuesday.
Many justices may approach the case with skepticism — the conservative 6-to-3 supermajority has focused on broadening gun rights in recent years. Nevertheless, this case presents the Mexican government with a chance to argue that U.S. companies are complicit in the violence perpetrated by drug cartels.
In Mexico, gun access is heavily regulated, making it nearly impossible for civilians to obtain the military-style weapons that cartels prefer legally. Mexico’s legal team referenced statistics indicating that a significant proportion of firearms recovered from crime scenes in Mexico — between 70 and 90 percent — originate from the United States. They also assert that gun dealers in states adjacent to Mexico sell weapons at twice the rate of those located elsewhere in the U.S.
The core issue at hand is whether a 2005 federal law shields the gun manufacturers from Mexico’s lawsuit. The Protection of Lawful Arms in Commerce Act was enacted following an uptick in lawsuits targeting the gun industry over mass shootings in the U.S. It restricts many lawsuits against gun manufacturers and retailers, although it allows legal action to proceed if plaintiffs can demonstrate that their injuries stem from direct violations of firearms laws.
A federal trial judge in Boston dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit, ruling that the 2005 law prohibited this kind of legal action. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV stated that the law “bars exactly this type of action from being brought in federal and state courts.”
However, a unanimous three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed. The appeals court ruled that Mexico’s case should continue as its claims that the companies facilitated illegal gun sales in Mexico fell within an exception in the law.
Subsequently, the gun manufacturers requested the Supreme Court to hear the case, titled Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141.
A trial court judge previously dismissed Mexico’s case against six of the defendants for different reasons, meaning the Supreme Court’s ruling will apply only to claims against Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer, and Interstate Arms, a wholesaler.
Defense lawyers for Smith & Wesson contended that Mexico’s legal theory was tenuous and that the companies could not be sued for legally manufacturing and selling firearms in the United States.
In contrast, attorneys for Mexico maintain that the lawsuit should proceed, arguing they have met the necessary standards to demonstrate that the gun manufacturers have supported and facilitated cartel activities.
They claim that certain manufacturers have produced firearms that seemingly cater specifically to Mexican buyers, including a limited edition .38 pistol inscribed with the image of Mexican revolutionary leader Emiliano Zapata and a quote attributed to him: “It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.”