Mexico’s lawsuit, filed in 2020, accuses gunmakers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, and Glock of fueling illegal arms trafficking by designing, marketing, and selling weapons that end up in the hands of Mexican cartels. The companies argue that U.S. law, specifically the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, shields them from liability when their products are misused.

Justices question Mexico’s legal theory

During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices cast doubt on whether Mexico’s claims could bypass the PLCAA’s broad protections. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that allowing the lawsuit to proceed could set a precedent for expanding liability across various industries.

“That’s a real concern for me,” Kavanaugh said, noting that many products, such as alcohol and cars, can be misused in criminal activity.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned how much of the U.S. gun market would need to be linked to trafficking before manufacturers could be held responsible.

“Do you know what the percentage of those guns that are sold in the United States compared to the ones found in Mexico is?” Roberts asked Emily Stetson, an attorney representing Mexico.

Stetson admitted she did not have an exact percentage but argued that the key issue was the sheer volume of smuggled firearms. She emphasized that U.S. guns are “coveted by the cartels,” pointing out that many cartel leaders are arrested with American-made weapons.

Gunmakers reject liability argument

Noel Francisco, an attorney for Smith & Wesson, dismissed Mexico’s claims as legally unfounded.

“Indeed, if Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash,” Francisco argued.

Francisco also pointed to precedent in the 2023 case of Twitter v. Taamneh, in which the social media platform was not held liable for aiding and abetting terrorist attacks because there was a lack of evidence that it knowingly helped the Islamic State group.

Stetson pushed back, likening the gunmakers’ alleged actions to a beer company knowingly supplying liquor stores that cater to underage drinkers. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reminded her that under U.S. law, “affirmative action” is required to prove aiding and abetting criminal activity — not just knowledge of wrongdoing.

Legal and political implications

The case unfolds amid rising tensions between the U.S. and Mexico, as President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on Mexican imports take effect. Trump has framed the tariffs as a pressure tactic to force Mexico to crack down on fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.

Lower courts have been divided on the lawsuit’s viability. A federal judge initially dismissed the case, citing PLCAA protections. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit revived it, ruling that Mexico had adequately alleged the gunmakers “aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by late June, could set a precedent for future lawsuits against gun manufacturers, including those brought by mass shooting victims seeking to hold firearm companies accountable.

Industry supporters call for dismissal

Matthew Forys, executive vice president of Landmark, defended the gun manufacturers in a statement to the Washington Examiner, calling the lawsuit an attempt to regulate the firearms industry through litigation.

“Mexico sued American firearms companies in federal court, claiming that the companies are aiding and abetting Mexican cartels,” Forys said. “Mexico is asking for billions of dollars in damages, which could bankrupt much of the American firearms industry.”

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS MEXICO’S CHALLENGE AGAINST US GUNMAKERS

Forys contends that Congress made clear that the industry should not be held liable for the criminal or unlawful use of their products. “This case is an attempt to regulate industry through litigation and should be dismissed,” he said.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the case will serve as a key test of gun manufacturers’ legal protections in the nation. The ruling could determine whether firearm companies face new liability risks or the industry remains insulated from lawsuits related to criminal misuse of their products.