WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is leaning towards blocking a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S., alleging their role in fueling cartel gun violence.
During the hearing, both liberal and conservative justices expressed doubts about the lawsuit’s viability under U.S. law, which provides significant protections to gun makers from such legal actions.
Concerns and Arguments
Major manufacturers like Smith & Wesson have petitioned the justices to intervene after a lower court permitted the lawsuit to proceed based on an exception related to alleged law violations by gun companies.
An attorney representing Mexico contended that the lawsuit, focusing on economic harm resulting from gun violence, is still in its early phases and merits further consideration.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the potential ramifications of accepting the theory, pointing out that many products can be misused, and an influx of similar lawsuits could adversely impact the U.S. economy.
Legal Implications
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated that the lawsuit appears to seek significant changes in the firearm industry, contrary to the goals of the shield law designed to prevent such alterations.
Moreover, Justice Samuel Alito raised the question of whether the U.S. could counter Mexico’s allegations of illegal conduct linked to activities within its borders.
The timing of these arguments coincides with President Donald Trump’s implementation of tariffs on Mexico and Canada, aimed at addressing issues like fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.
Background and Context
The lawsuit was initiated four years ago by the Mexican government against prominent gun companies such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, and Glock Inc.
Despite Mexico’s stringent gun regulations, a large number of firearms are illicitly brought in by powerful drug cartels annually.
The lawsuit asserts that 70% of these weapons originate from the United States, alleging that the companies were aware of the trafficking activities and sought to profit from this illicit market.
Legal Proceedings and Challenges
While a federal judge initially dismissed the lawsuit under a law shielding gun companies from civil suits, an appeals court reinstated it, citing an exception for cases where companies are accused of breaching laws in their sales or marketing practices.
Similar exceptions have been invoked in prior cases, such as the lawsuit by victims of the Sandy Hook mass shooting.
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling, expected by late June, could have broader implications for similar lawsuits arising from mass shootings and the liability of gun manufacturers.
Smith & Wesson’s attorney, Noel Francisco, contends that the lawsuit lacks substantial evidence linking the companies’ business practices to cartel violence, rendering the exceptions irrelevant.
