The Supreme Court will consider Tuesday whether U.S. gun manufacturers should be punished for allegedly “aiding and abetting” Mexico’s drug cartels, as the Mexican government seeks to hold gun companies liable for the cartels’ violence—accelerating a faceoff between President Donald Trump and Mexican authorities over drug cartels.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday over Mexico's effort to hold U.S. gun companies ... [+]
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday as gun manufacturers—including Smith & Wesson, Glock and Colt’s Manufacturing Company—ask the court to throw out the Mexican government’s lawsuit against them, which alleges the companies “deliberately aided and abetted the unlawful sale of firearms” to Mexico’s drug cartels and seeks $10 billion in damages.
Since Mexico has very strict laws around gun purchases, most of the firearms used by the country’s cartels are smuggled in from the U.S., with the Mexican government alleging the gun companies “knowing[ly]” allow their products to be trafficked to the cartels in order to make more money.
The gun manufacturers argue Mexico can’t sue them under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars firearms companies from being sued for criminal activities that involve their products, alleging Mexico doesn’t have any evidence of companies doing anything unlawful and is only targeting the firearms industry for being “generally aware” of its products being sold illegally and “not chang[ing] its existing practices in ways Mexico believes would help stop them.”
Mexico has argued its claims against the gun companies fall into an exception under the PLCAA that allow lawsuits against companies when they “knowingly” help aid and abet a crime.
The Mexican government alleges the gun companies have knowingly taken steps that help their products be sold to cartels, such as intentionally selling to dealers that are known to work with cartels and marketing firearms that specifically cater to the criminal organizations, like Mexico-themed pistols engraved with a quote that the Mexican government notes is a “particular favorite” of the cartels.
The Supreme Court will rule on whether to throw out an appeals court ruling that allowed the Mexican government to sue the companies, as they determine whether American firearm companies have helped cause the cartels’ actions and if they are “aiding and abetting” the cartels because they “allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Tuesday morning, but a ruling likely won’t come out for another few months, before the court’s term ends in June. It’s also unclear how the lawsuit will play out after the Supreme Court’s ruling. If the justices rule the Mexican government can sue the gun companies under the PLCAA, it will likely result in the case being sent back to a lower court, where it will keep playing out. That means it could still ultimately result in a ruling in the gun companies’ favor, once the lower court has considered all the evidence and held a trial. If the Supreme Court rules Mexico can’t sue the gun companies under federal law, that would likely end the case altogether.
$170 million. That’s the approximate value of the guns that are trafficked into Mexico each year, according to figures cited by the Mexican government, which alleged gun manufacturers “deliberately” allow their guns to be sent to Mexico in order to “boost their bottom lines.” “The criminal market is ‘a feature, not a bug’ of Petitioners’ sales practices,” the Mexican government alleged in a court filing.
The oral arguments in the Mexico case are taking place the same day that Trump imposed 25% tariffs on imported goods from Mexico, a move that he has said is a retaliatory measure for the country failing to stop the flow of fentanyl from the drug cartels into the U.S., along with undocumented immigration. The Trump administration has designated some cartels as terrorist organizations, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened possible military action should Mexico not combat alleged collusion between its government and drug cartels. Trump’s executive order from February that initially announced the tariffs—which then took effect Tuesday—argues “the sustained influx of … illicit opioids and other drugs” from Mexico “has profound consequences on our Nation,” adding that Mexico’s drug organizations “cultivate, process, and distribute massive quantities of narcotics that fuel addiction and violence in communities across the United States.”
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has suggested the country could amend its lawsuit to seek harsher punishments against the gun companies based on Trump designating cartels as terrorist organizations, should the Supreme Court allow it to move forward. “If they declare these criminal groups as terrorists, then we’ll have to expand our US lawsuit,” Sheinbaum told reporters in February, as quoted by The Guardian, suggesting an amended lawsuit could seek to hold the companies liable for alleged complicity with terrorist groups.
Republican lawmakers and states have heavily protested Mexico’s legal case, submitting court filings alleging a ruling in Mexico’s favor would infringe on Americans’ civil rights. A group of GOP lawmakers led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, claimed Mexico’s lawsuit is “an affront to American sovereignty,” alleging the government is trying to “manipulate American courts” into imposing its comparatively stricter gun control laws “upon the citizens and companies of this nation.” A coalition of GOP state attorneys general, along with Arizona’s legislature, also submitted a brief arguing against Mexico’s lawsuit, claiming the country is “impos[ing]
Gun companies have claimed in their court filings that a Supreme Court ruling in Mexico’s favor would have vast consequences for the private sector, opening companies up to lawsuits based on any misconduct or harm involving their products. In addition to firearms companies, the gun manufacturers also pointed to companies producing items like tobacco, pharmaceuticals and lead paint as being among those that could face similar legal liability. Opponents have also expressed concern a ruling in Mexico’s favor would limit gun rights in the U.S. by forcing manufacturers to implement more safeguards, with the National Rifle Association claiming in a court brief that Mexico is trying to “extinguish the Second Amendment.” Mexico has roundly denied that a ruling in its favor would have any of the repercussions the gun companies claim, arguing it is a case with a limited scope that only seeks to enforce existing laws allowing gun companies to be held liable when they knowingly aid and abet crime. “This is not a Second Amendment case,” the government argued in a court filing, noting the Second Amendment “does not grant a right to supply firearms to cartels in Mexico.”
While Mexico argues the case is a narrow one, Democrats and gun control advocates have alleged victims of gun violence would be harmed by a decision in the gun companies’ favor. Any ruling by the Supreme Court that weakened the exception in the PLCAA allowing lawsuits against companies that knowingly aid and abet crime would “deprive victims of gun violence and their families of what is often the only practical recourse they have,” Democratic lawmakers argued in a filing. They also alleged the exception allowing gun companies to be sued is an “important deterrent” that keeps companies from committing wrongdoing. Pro-gun control group March for Our Lives Action Fund similarly pointed to past litigation against gun sellers who have sold firearms to people knowing they have mental health conditions or without verifying their age, among other cases, to justify why the exception should not be weakened. A ruling against Mexico would mean “companies that knowingly engage in misconduct would be able to avoid accountability and continue to act with impunity,” the organization argued.
The Supreme Court is taking up Mexico’s lawsuit after issuing a string of major gun-related rulings in recent years, most notably broadly weakening gun restrictions in 2022 with a ruling against New York’s regulations on concealed carry. That ruling found New York’s restrictions were overly burdensome and said any gun regulations must be in line with historical tradition, paving the way for gun control laws to be rolled back nationwide. The 6-3 conservative court ruled last term to uphold federal restrictions on domestic abusers owning firearms, though it also threw out the federal ban on bump stocks that allow firearms to function like automatic weapons. The Mexico case is one of two major gun cases the court is hearing this term, as justices also consider whether to uphold Biden-era federal restrictions on “ghost guns,” firearms that users assemble themselves and are harder to trace. A ruling has not been issued yet in that case.