Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable for Cartel Violence
In a unanimous blow to gun control advocacy groups, he Supreme Court shut down Mexicos $10 billion claim targeting U.S. gun makers in a cross-border lawsuit.
Mexico originally filed the suit in 2021, arguing that U.S. gun companies were responsible for the weapons that fueled cartel violence. Mexico received support in its lawsuit from American gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund.
The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the manufacturers alleged failure to exercise "reasonable care" does not meet the standard necessary to be found liable for "aiding and abetting" the sale of illegal firearms in Mexico.
Mexico had asked the court for $10 billion in damages and additional court-imposed injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on manufacturers. According to a lawyer who spoke to RCP, siding with Mexico on the injunctive relief "would have likely severely prohibited the distribution of the manufacturers products" within the United States.
A federal district court judge initially ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected the gun manufacturers from the suit. In 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals revitalized the lawsuit. In response, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson brought the case to the Supreme Court.
The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. The law includes exceptions which Mexicos lawyers sought to invoke.
The original suit by Mexico, which named multiple U.S.-based gun manufacturers as defendants, claimed that Mexicans "have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border." It also argued that U.S. companies were negligent in their sales practices, claiming that the gun companies "are not accidental or unintentional players in this tragedy; they are deliberate and willing participants, reaping profits from the criminal market they knowingly supply."
In response, lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued in a filing that the lawsuit "faults the defendants for producing common firearms" and for "failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens." They made the case that "aiding and abetting criminal activity must involve something more than making products generally." Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning.
In reference to the injunctive relief that Mexico asked the court to grant, lawyers for Smith & Wesson asserted that the lawsuit was "inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters."
According to some estimates, more than 250,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. In contrast, Mexico has one gun store and issues fewer than 50 new gun permits each year. The U.S. is the largest firearm exporter in the world, partly due to relaxed gun laws within the country.
The unanimous decision marks the first ruling by the Supreme Court where the PLCAA is cited and could serve as precedent for protecting weapons manufacturers in future cases. The 9-0 ruling suggests strong judicial consensus on the limits of civil liability for gun manufacturers under federal law. It is seen as a win by gun rights activists, with the NRA arguing in their amicus brief on the case that "Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish Americas."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each issued concurring opinions, with Jackson writing that Mexicos lawsuit targeted industry-wide practices that Congress has chosen not to prohibit and Thomas arguing that violations of U.S. law must be established in court for the PLCAA exceptions to be valid.
James Eustis is an intern at RealClearPolitics. He studies politics at Washington & Lee University.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
26 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Kilmar Abrego Garcia Was Never Coming Back. Then He Did.
After insisting again and again that they would not bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States, Trump-administration officials flew the 29-year-old Maryland man back from El Salvador today to face a grand-jury criminal indictment in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia's return doesn't mean he can go free. He now faces federal charges for human trafficking, according to the indictment unsealed today, and the Trump administration will get its opportunity to prove what it has long alleged about Abrego Garcia's membership in the gang MS-13. Even if prosecutors fail to convict him, the government could attempt to deport him to a third country—just not back to El Salvador. But by bringing him back to the United States, the Trump administration has climbed down from the court-defying pedestal where Vice President J. D. Vance, the adviser Stephen Miller, and Cabinet officials perched for months, claiming that Abrego Garcia's deportation was not, in fact, a mistake, and that he would never be allowed to set foot in the country again. Their obstinacy led to warnings of a constitutional crisis. Abrego Garcia's wife, a U.S. citizen, sued the government in March after he was deported to his native country in violation of a 2019 court order protecting him from being sent back to face likely harm. U.S. officials initially acknowledged that they'd made an 'administrative error,' then shrugged and said that the matter was out of their hands. White House officials remained dug in even as the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again,' Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testified to lawmakers last month. Now, by bringing Abrego Garcia back to face criminal charges, the administration can quiet the constitutional concerns about his due-process rights and lay out the evidence it claims to possess showing that he is not a benign sheet-metal worker and devoted father but a gang leader and human trafficker. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters that Abrego Garcia 'played a significant role in an alien-smuggling ring.' The criminal charges, filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, allege that Abrego Garcia participated in a nine-year conspiracy that moved thousands of people to destinations across the United States and totaled more than 100 trips. The indictment also accuses him of gun running and drug smuggling. According to ABC News, which first reported on Abrego Garcia's return and the trafficking charges, the chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in Nashville resigned after the indictment was filed. The attorney, Ben Schrader, declined to comment when I reached out to him this evening. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador in April and was allowed by the country's authorities to meet with Abrego Garcia, said in a statement that the administration has 'finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.' 'As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights—and the rights of all,' Van Hollen said in the statement. 'The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.' This is the second time in a week that Trump officials have relented on one of the cases in which federal judges ordered the government to bring back a deportee removed from the country without due process. A gay Guatemalan asylum seeker known in court documents as O.C.G., who was wrongly deported to Mexico, was allowed to return and pursue his protection claim on Wednesday. The Trump administration remains defiant elsewhere, however, holding a group of men from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and other nations in a shipping container on a U.S. military base in Djibouti while it attempts to deport them to South Sudan. Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told me the administration's decision to bring his client back is a sign that 'they were playing games with the court all along.' Standard legal procedure would entail filing criminal charges against an alleged perpetrator and convicting them prior to a deportation—not the other way around, as the Trump administration is now attempting, Sandoval-Mosenberg said. 'Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after,' he said. 'This is an abuse of power, not justice. The government should put him on trial, yes—but in front of the same immigration judge who heard his case in 2019, which is the ordinary manner of doing things.' After Abrego Garcia's return, government attorneys told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that they intend to file a motion to dismiss the case challenging his unlawful deportation. Abrego Garcia was stopped for speeding by Tennessee state troopers in December 2022 while driving a Chevy Suburban with nine male passengers, none of whom carried identification, according to the indictment. Abrego Garcia was cited for an expired license, but he was not arrested or charged with a crime, even though troopers flagged the incident as a potential trafficking case. Abrego Garcia told officers that he'd been sent by his employer to pick up the men for a construction job, and his family has said that he would sometimes drive workers between job sites. They have denied the government's claims that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member. Driving passengers for money wouldn't be a crime unless the government can prove that Abrego Garcia knew he was transporting passengers who were unlawfully present, Andrew Rankin, an immigration attorney in Memphis, told me. Participating in a criminal conspiracy to bring them across the U.S.-Mexico border, as the government alleges, would bring severer penalties. 'What did he know? Did he have actual knowledge? What was the discussion between each person and Abrego?' Rankin said. 'And if these people were in violation of the law, the government could offer immunity to testify against him.' The indictment identifies six unnamed co-conspirators and says that Abrego Garcia transported MS-13 gang members on the trips. One of the co-conspirators told investigators that Abrego Garcia 'abused some of the female undocumented aliens' and was ordered to stop because it was 'bad for business.' Rankin said it was highly unusual for the government to deport someone and then begin building a criminal indictment. 'Now that the government has had to essentially bend the knee to bring Mr. Abrego back, the government is upset, and they can't just let him go,' Rankin told me. 'They can't just let him out and just let him walk around like he did before.'
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Election observers at the OAS voice serious concerns about Mexico's contentious judicial elections
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Electoral watchdogs at the Organization of American States expressed concern Friday over the low turnout in Mexico's historic and contentious judicial elections, recommending that countries in the Americas not follow its path. In a report, the electoral mission said the June 1 election was 'extremely complex' and 'polarizing,' and was marked by a 'widespread lack of awareness' among voters about what they were voting for and who the thousands of candidates were. In Sunday's vote, Mexicans elected 881 federal judges and another 1,800 state judges as part of a complete overhaul of the judiciary. The process was carried out following a constitutional reform approved last year by a Congress with a ruling-party majority. The overhaul fueled protests and criticism within Mexico and by the American and Canadian governments, which warned of a potential loss of judicial independence and the politicization of justice in Mexico. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her mentor and architect of the overhaul, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador claimed they want to root out corruption in the judiciary, which most Mexicans agree is broken. Mexico's electoral authority said this week that voter turnout was 13%, significantly lower than the 60% turnout in last year's general elections. In the Friday report, the OAS mission — led by former Chilean Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz Valenzuela — expressed concern over 'the low level of citizen participation' and noted that 'this is one of the lowest turnout levels in the region.' Observers also pointed to the 'high percentage' of null and unmarked ballots, which exceeded 10%. 'It's necessary to carry out a comprehensive reflection on the nature of the (electoral) process and how it was conducted,' the report concluded. The OAS's 16-member observation mission also raised concerns about the nine candidates elected to join Mexico's Supreme Court who 'were promoted in physical and digital 'cheat sheets.'' While parties were not allowed to advocate for candidates, pamphlets known as 'accordions' guiding voters on which candidates to vote for were widely distributed. Mexican electoral authorities investigated complaints against the ruling Morena party and other opposition groups that distributed the voter guides in communities across the capital and other cities in the weeks leading up to the vote. The agency also ordered that a website featuring a digital cheat sheet with Morena-aligned candidates for the Supreme Court and other top tribunals be taken down. OAS observers also noted that six of the nine candidates elected to the high court had been nominated by the government controlled by Morena, and the remaining three were justices appointed by López Obrador, 'which raises reasonable doubts about the autonomy and independence of the highest court in relation to the Executive.' Given the findings, the mission concluded that 'it does not recommend this model of judge selection be replicated in other countries in the region.' Despite the criticism, Sheinbaum praised the election this week, calling it a success. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine hopes for Trump-Zelensky meeting in Canada during G7
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy intends to hold a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump during the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada, Head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak said on air on June 6. The summit is scheduled to take place from June 15 to 17 in Kananaskis, Alberta. Yermak said the Ukrainian delegation's recent trip to Washington was aimed in part at arranging the high-level meeting between Zelensky and Trump. The Ukrainian delegation, led by First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy Yulia Svyrydenko, arrived in the U.S. on the morning of June 3. The delegation included senior officials from the Defense Ministry and the Presidential Office. During their visit, the Ukrainian officials are expected to engage with American counterparts on a wide range of critical issues, including ongoing negotiations in Istanbul, sanctions policy against Russia, and continued support for Ukraine amid Russia's full-scale war. Following the latest round of peace talks between Ukraine and Russia on June 2, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested that Turkey plans to facilitate a meeting between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine in either Ankara or Istanbul. Speaking to reporters on the same day, Zelensky expressed readiness to take part in such talks. "I had a conversation with President Erdoğan of Turkey. And indeed, he sent a signal, asking how I would feel about a meeting of four leaders: himself, the President of the United States, Putin, and me. I told him that I support a meeting at the level of leaders, because I have the impression that there will be no ceasefire without our meeting," Zelensky said during an online press conference attended by the Kyiv Independent. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
