The case, revived by a federal appeals court, challenges the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law that generally shields gun manufacturers from civil liability when their products are used in criminal activities. A lower court initially dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit based on this law, but the 1st Circuit Court ruled that Mexico’s claims fit an exemption in the PLCAA, allowing the suit to move forward.

Mexico argues that U.S. gun manufacturers, such as Smith & Wesson, are culpable for enabling the illegal flow of firearms across the border by marketing their products in a way that appeals to cartels and by neglecting to implement safeguards, such as tamper-resistant serial numbers. They also allege that these companies are complicit in supplying firearms to known criminal networks.

Gun manufacturers are pushing back, citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, which held that the social media platform was not liable for aiding and abetting terrorist activities simply by hosting ISIS-related content. The manufacturers argue they cannot be held responsible for crimes committed with their products by third parties.

This case, which could redefine the scope of liability protections for the firearms industry, comes as the Supreme Court tackles other major issues this term, including reverse discrimination, nuclear waste storage, and the death penalty.

The decision in this case could have far-reaching implications for international relations and the accountability of firearm distributors.