Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday said it would consider bids from U.S. gun manufacturers to end a lawsuit demanding that the Mexican government hold them accountable for violence committed by drug cartels.
The case involves some of America’s largest and most well-known gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, and Glock. They are urging the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that allowed Mexico to proceed with the lawsuit against them despite a 2005 law that broadly shields the gun industry from liability.
The case is scheduled to be heard at the next court date. Monday starts. It is one of 15 new cases the justices added to their list after meeting earlier this week to consider a number of appeals.
The legal battle began with a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government in August 2021 against seven U.S. gun manufacturers and one distributor over violence committed by Mexican drug cartels. Mexico claims that U.S. gun dealers are the main source of guns used by cartels, which number as many as 597,000 guns. Trafficked to Mexico annually. Nearly half of the guns recovered from Mexican crime scenes were manufactured by companies named in the lawsuit, lawyers said.
The lawsuit alleged that the firearms industry was “aiding and abetting” the cartels by engaging in certain business practices despite knowing that the cartels could smuggle firearms across the southern border. The Mexican government alleged that U.S. gun manufacturers engaged in this practice to profit from the criminal weapons market.
Mexico specifically pointed to four policies that support its claim that the gun industry has “actively supported and promoted” terrorist groups on the U.S.-Mexico border for decades. AR-15 and high capacity magazines. The Mexican government has also taken issue with the marketing and manufacturing decisions of gun companies, claiming they make guns easier to modify.
Mexico has demanded $10 billion in damages from the gun manufacturers and issued a court order that “all necessary steps must be taken to reduce the current and future harm in Mexico resulting from their actions.”
A federal district court dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit, pointing to a 2005 law that bars such lawsuits from being filed in U.S. courts. A law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLAA) protects law-abiding gun companies from liability for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products. Liability shields can be lifted if those in the firearms industry break the law.
This law has been applied to numerous lawsuits filed by cities and U.S. citizens who have attempted to sue the gun industry for misuse of weapons.
A federal appeals court revived the Mexican government’s lawsuit, arguing that the 2005 law allows for an exception. The court ruled that “by delivering firearms knowing that the purchasers would include illegal purchasers and making design and marketing decisions to target those precise individuals, the manufacturer is aiding and abetting illegal sales.”
The gun industry is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, warning it could lead to a flood of lawsuits from other foreign and U.S. government agencies seeking to hold the gun industry accountable for violence committed by users of the weapons.
“Mexico’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit will stay with the U.S. firearms industry for years, putting costly and intrusive findings in the hands of foreign sovereigns who will continue to bully the industry into adopting multiple gun control measures. “It was rejected by the American voters,” attorneys for gun manufacturers warned in a filing with the Supreme Court.
Lawyers for the Mexican government have stressed that the case is far from over as proceedings continue to unfold in district courts, including efforts to have the case dismissed on other grounds. They have criticized the gun industry for providing firepower to cartels that have killed thousands of Mexican civilians and for failing to curb arms sales to some dealers despite urgings from the Justice Department.
In a lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court, the Mexican government argued that the manufacturers “made clear, repeated and deliberate decisions to supply illegal sellers and took the necessary proactive steps to sell illegal firearms that armed the cartels.”
