On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government against American gun manufacturers.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Associate Justice Elena Kagan ruled that a 2021 lawsuit filed by Mexico against several U.S. gun companies is “barred” by the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). As The Federalist previously reported, that federal law “protects gun manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for any ‘harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.’”
In its original complaint, Mexico alleged that the named U.S. gun manufacturers’ “reckless and unlawful practices” help facilitate the illegal smuggling of firearms into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Mexico City contended these policies caused harm to the country’s residents.
As noted by Kagan, however, Mexico’s lawsuit “does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,” and thus, the PLCAA renders the legal challenge moot.
“Congress enacted PLCAA to halt lawsuits attempting to make gun manufacturers pay for harms resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms. Mexico’s suit closely resembles those lawsuits,” Kagan wrote. “And while the predicate exception allows some such suits to proceed, accepting Mexico’s theory would swallow most of the rule. The Court doubts Congress intended to draft such a capacious way out of PLCAA, and in fact it did not.”
While joining with the majority, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas also authored a concurring opinion in the case. The George H.W. Bush appointee agreed with the high court’s ruling on the matter, but advised, “In future cases, courts should more fully examine the meaning of ‘violation’ under the PLCAA.”
“It seems to me that the PLCAA at least arguably requires not only a plausible allegation that a defendant has committed a predicate violation, but also an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the ‘violation.’ Allowing plaintiffs to proffer mere allegations of a predicate violation would force many defendants in PLCAA litigation to litigate their criminal guilt in a civil proceeding, without the full panoply of protections that we otherwise afford to criminal defendants,” Thomas wrote. “And, these defendants might even include ones who were cleared in an earlier proceeding, such as through a noncharging decision or a not-guilty or not -liable verdict. Such collateral adjudication would be at best highly unusual, and would likely raise serious constitutional questions that would counsel in favor of a narrower interpretation.”
“Particularly given the PLCAA’s aim of protecting gun manufacturers from litigation … this issue warrants careful consideration,” he added.
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who similarly sided with the majority, also authored a concurring opinion in the case “to explain that, in [her] view, the complaint’s core flaw is its failure to allege any nonconclusory statutory violations in the first place.”
The Supreme Court’s decision reverses the 1st Court of Appeals’ ruling in favor of Mexico and “remand[s] the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood