Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable for Cartel Violence
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
UPI
19 minutes ago
- UPI
On This Day Aug. 16: West Caribbean Airways crash kills 160 in Venezuela
Aug. 16 (UPI) -- On this date in history: In 1812, British forces foiled plans for a U.S. invasion of Canada by capturing the city of Detroit. In 1896, the North Country gold rush began with the discovery of gold in the Klondike region of Canada's Yukon Territory. In 1948, baseball legend Babe Ruth died in New York of cancer at age 53. In 1954, the first edition of Sports Illustrated was published. File Photo by Gary I Rothstein/UPI In 1977, Elvis Presley, the king of rock 'n' roll, died of heart failure at his home in Memphis at age 42. In 1987, a Northwest Airlines jet bound for Phoenix crashed on takeoff from Detroit Metropolitan Airport, killing 156 people. A 4-year-old girl, Celia Cichan, was the sole survivor. In 2005, a West Caribbean Airways flight from Colombia crashed in a remote area of northwest Venezuela, killing 160 people. In 2008, American swimmer Michael Phelps won his record eighth gold medal in a single Olympics in the Summer Games at Beijing. File Photo by Roger L. Wollenberg/UPI In 2009, John Yettaw, a Missouri man convicted in Myanmar of illegally visiting political opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, serving a lengthy house-arrest sentence, was allowed to leave the country. In 2012, the Ecuadorean government said it was granting political asylum in its London Embassy to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, trying to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questioning in a sexual assault investigation and subsequent extradition to the United States on allegations he published classified material. Ecuador withdrew its offer of asylum in April 2019, and London police arrested him. In 2013, the MV Thomas Aquinas ferry carrying nearly 700 people collided with a cargo ship and sank off the Philippines. Authorities later said the accident killed about 60 people and many others were reported missing. In 2024, President Joe Biden signed a proclamation establishing the Springfield 1908 Race Riot National Monument in Illinois recognizing one of the most notable moments of racial tension in the country at the time. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Facing up to the stark realities of Gaza
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Netanyahu recently announced that Israel will take over the Gaza strip to 'further the elimination of Hamas.' It's another step in his attempt to annex Gaza. The United States has always considered Israel to be an ally. We have sent billions of dollars worth of weaponry and other aid to Israel. But Netanyahu is not our friend. The United States needs to stop supporting this power-hungry despot. Advertisement Sandra Breen Warwick, RI All eyes are on the innocents of Gaza Re ' Advertisement As plans to escalate the war against Hamas come to light, the horror of starvation in Gaza increases daily. The people of the world are watching the heartless killing of innocents in Gaza — women, children, and the disabled. Israel, Hamas, and Iran are directly culpable. But we American taxpayers are financing this horror. We are paying for the fighter planes and ammunition used by armed Israelis to rain death and destruction on Gaza's people. We are complicit in the horrifying starvation of innocents, as the eyes of the world watch children struggle for life and die from lack of food. Unless this horror is stopped immediately and the besieged innocents of Gaza have access to food, water, and safety, then the aggressors — both Israel and Hamas — should be shunned by the world. A coalition led by the United Nations must be given direct access to Gaza, with armed security and a variety of peacekeepers paving the way. America, my country, must lead the way to peace in Gaza. We have been the world's peacekeepers since the end of World War II. Why are we now abandoning the innocent, the vulnerable, the starving children? John J. Drew Boston The writer is the former president/CEO of Action for Boston Community Development. History is repeating itself, and it needs to stop It is not anti-Jewish to be against the Israeli government's actions in Gaza, which many experts conclude amount to genocide. Such mass starvation is an affront to humanity. Competent humanitarian agencies need to be given access to those starving; the annihilation of the Palestinian people needs to stop. President Bill Clinton wavered and did not call the Rwanda tragedy a genocide until it was too late. History is now repeating itself. Advertisement John Hammock Belmont The writer is president of Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation and former president of Oxfam America. There probably won't be a 'Diary of a Young Girl' from Gaza Why we will likely never get to know the 'Anne Frank' of Gaza: 1. There is no attic in Gaza. 2. There is no food in Gaza. 3. There is no neighbor who can protect her. 4. Her family is likely injured or dead. 5. International journalists are not allowed in Gaza. 6. Soon, she will be dead. Kathleen Curtis Marblehead Some needed momentum for a two-state solution Re ' Ron Israel Milton Hisham Jabi Nablus, West Bank The writers are members of the board of the Global Citizens' Initiative, a nonprofit focused on bringing people and organizations together to solve global problems. Where is the outrage over Hamas's actions? Where's the outrage? Hamas recently released video showing two barely alive, emaciated Israeli hostages abducted from the Nova music festival during the Hamas invasion on Oct. 7, 2023. Outrage against the tragedies of the continuing war in the aftermath of that vicious attack appears to be selective. It is reserved for Israel as the perceived sole perpetrator of all the misery now engulfing Gaza. Hamas, which for 20 years brutally oppressed the population under its control, in part through holding the reins of food and aid distribution, gets a pass from the international community. The new video evidence of Hamas's starvation of these hostages can't move the needle. Instead, France, Britain, and Canada have announced their intention to recognize a Palestinian state, under various conditions. With no plan for effective governance in place, how will that help? Absent a coordinated agreement for responsible administration of Gaza by a coalition of Arab and Western power players, it won't. Advertisement David Greenfield Waltham Israelis and Americans need to take a stand I agree with John Benjamin's piece 'Israel is losing America' (Ideas, Aug. 10). The Gaza atrocities are terrible. The United States would have lost worldwide support if we conducted our Afghanistan war with such callous regard for civilians. Israel must be held responsible for its conduct. At the same time, the Trump administration is using American Jews and Israel as a divisive lever in the United States. His extortion of universities and companies is based in part on claims of antisemitism, while completely ignoring anti-Palestinian views. The good people of Israel, like the good people of the United States, need to reject the policies of their extremist governments and enable freedom and equality for all. John Greichen Jr. Newport, R.I.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's aggressive push to take over DC policing may be a template for an approach in other cities
WASHINGTON (AP) — The left sees President Donald Trump's attempted takeover of Washington law enforcement as part of a multifront march to autocracy — 'vindictive authoritarian rule,' as one activist put it — and as an extraordinary thing to do in rather ordinary times on the streets of the capital. To the right, it's a bold move to fracture the crust of Democratic urban bureaucracy and make D.C. a better place to live. Where that debate settles — if it ever does — may determine whether Washington, a symbol for America in all its granite glory, history, achievement, inequality and dysfunction, becomes a model under the imprint of Trump for how cities are policed, cleaned up and run, or ruined. Under the name of his Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, Trump put some 800 National Guard troops on Washington streets this past week, declaring at the outset, 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals.' Grunge was also on his mind. 'If our capital is dirty, our whole country is dirty, and they don't respect us.' He then upped the stakes by declaring federal control of the district's police department and naming an emergency chief. That set off alarms and prompted local officials to sue to stop the effort. 'I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive,' Police Chief Pamela Smith said. On Friday, the Trump administration partially retreated from its effort to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department when a judge, skeptical that the president had the authority to do what he tried to do, urged both sides to reach a compromise, which they did — at least for now. Trump's Justice Department agreed to leave Smith in control, while still intending to instruct her department on law enforcement practices. In a new memo, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the force to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. In this heavily Democratic city, local officials and many citizens did not like the National Guard deployment. At the same time, they acknowledged the Republican president had the right to order it because of the federal government's unique powers in the district. But Trump's attempt to seize formal control of the police department, for the first time since D.C. gained a partial measure of autonomy in the Home Rule Act of 1973, was their red line. When the feds stepped in For sure, there have been times when the U.S. military has been deployed to American streets, but almost always in the face of a riot or a calamitous event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump's use of force was born of an emergency that he saw and city officials — and many others — did not. A stranger to nuance, Trump has used the language of emergency to justify much of what he's done: his deportations of foreigners, his tariffs, his short-term deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, and now his aggressive intervention into Washington policing. Washington does have crime and endemic homelessness, like every city in the country. But there was nothing like an urban fire that the masses thought needed to be quelled. Violent crime is down, as it is in many U.S. cities. Washington is also a city about which most Americans feel ownership — or at least that they have a stake. More than 25 million of them visited in 2024, a record year, plus over 2 million people from abroad. It's where middle schoolers on field trips get to see what they learn about in class — and perhaps to dance to pop tunes with the man with the music player so often in front of the White House. Washington is part federal theme park, with its historic buildings and museums, and part downtown, where restaurants and lobbyists outnumber any corporate presence. Neighborhoods range from the places where Jeff Bezos set a record for a home purchase price to destitute streets in economically depressed areas that are also magnets for drugs and crime. In 1968, the capital was a city on fire with riots. Twenty years later, a murder spree and crack epidemic fed the sense of a place out of control. But over the last 30 years, the city's population and its collective wealth have swelled. A cooked-up emergency? Against that backdrop, Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, assailed Trump's moves in Washington. 'You're talking about an emergency, really?' Krasner said, as if speaking with the president. 'Or is it that you're talking about an emergency because you want to pretend everything is an emergency so that you can roll tanks?" In Washington, a coalition of activists called Not Above the Law denounced what they saw as just the latest step by Trump to seize levers of power he has no business grasping. 'The onslaught of lawlessness and autocratic activities has escalated,' said Lisa Gilbert, co-chair of the group and co-president of Public Citizen. 'The last two weeks should have crystallized for all Americans that Donald Trump will not stop until democracy is replaced by vindictive authoritarian rule.' Fifty miles northeast, in the nearest major city, Baltimore's Democratic mayor criticized what he saw as Trump's effort to distract the public from economic pain and 'America's falling standing in the world.' 'Every mayor and police chief in America works with our local federal agents to do great work — to go after gun traffickers, to go after violent organizations,' Brandon Scott said. 'How is taking them off of that job, sending them out to just patrol the street, making our country safer?' But the leader of the D.C. Police Union, Gregg Pemberton, endorsed Trump's intervention — while saying it should not become permanent. 'We stand with the president in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory,' Pemberton said. From his vantage point, 'Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits.' The Home Rule Act lets a president invoke certain emergency powers over the police department for 30 days, after which Congress must decide whether to extend the period. Trump's attempt to use that provision stirred interest among some Republicans in Congress in giving him an even freer hand. Among them, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee drafted a resolution that would eliminate the time limit on federal control. This, he told Fox News Digital, would 'give the president all the time and authority he needs to crush lawlessness, restore order, and reclaim our capital once and for all.' Which raises a question that Trump has robustly hinted at and others are wondering, too: If there is success in the district — at least, success in the president's eyes — what might that mean for other American cities he thinks need to be fixed? Where does — where could — the federal government go next?
