Latest news with #ProtectionofLawfulCommerceinArmsAct
Washington Post
10-03-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Mexico's lawsuit is not the way to curb gun violence
Well-intentioned advocates for gun control have in recent years tried to use the courts creatively to bankrupt firearms manufacturers. The clearest illustration of this is a $10 billion lawsuit filed by the government of Mexico, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which alleges that seven leaders in the industry willfully fueled cartel violence south of the border, and demands court-mandated safety requirements around the marketing and distribution of guns. During oral arguments last week, all nine justices sounded dubious. Essentially, Mexico wants the court to legislate from the bench by substituting its own judgment for a law that Congress passed 20 years ago, which was plainly intended to thwart just this kind of litigation. Regardless of how much people loathe guns, they must accept the authority of valid laws. The case before the high court is not about the fraught U.S.-Mexico relationship amid President Donald Trump's self-destructive trade war. It's only nominally about the Second Amendment and personal liberty. Primarily, it's about the rule of law — and economic freedom. Three years ago, a U.S. district judge in Massachusetts dismissed Mexico's suit on the grounds that the gunmakers are shielded under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This 2005 law prohibits civil suits against gun companies for 'the criminal or unlawful misuse' of their product by a third party. But last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit reversed that decision, citing a narrow exception in the law that allows suits when a gunmaker 'knowingly violated a state or federal statute.' Even then, however, the violation must be 'a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.' Nevertheless, the three-judge panel, all nominated by Democratic presidents, said the gun companies are 'more akin to a calculated and willing participant in the supply chain.' This was lamentable judicial activism. The 2005 law was written to protect American gunmakers from going out of business amid a tsunami of lawsuits filed by shooting victims, as well as state and local governments, including the cities of Boston and Chicago. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted during arguments on the Mexico case that the point of the 2005 law was 'Congress protecting its own prerogative to be the one to regulate the industry.' The law had passed the Senate 65-31, with support from then-Democratic leader Harry M. Reid, and cleared the House 283-144, with 59 Democrats. If the Supreme Court were to rule in Mexico's favor now, it would open the floodgates for frivolous lawsuits against other businesses, too. Imagine if beer companies became liable for selling large quantities of their product in college towns. Under Mexico's theory of the case, these companies could foresee that underage people would wind up drinking their product, so they'd be responsible for any trouble they got into. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh explained that the same argument could be run against companies that make baseball bats and knives sold in high-crime areas, not to mention pharmaceuticals or automobiles. 'Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they're going to misused by some subset of people,' he said. In 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a similar lawsuit that tried to hold Twitter liable for aiding and abetting terrorism. The family of a victim killed in a 2017 attack in Turkey claimed that the social media platform had contributed to the death by hosting content that helped the Islamic State recruit followers. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court: 'If aiding-and-abetting liability were taken too far, then ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer.' Congress has established separate liability shields for other industries, as well. Think of vaccine manufacturers and internet service providers (Section 230). To keep the industry solvent after Sept. 11, 2001, airlines were protected from liability suits stemming from the terrorist attacks. In this case, Mexico does not offer proof that gunmakers coordinated with specific gun dealers known to be selling illegally. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered why they didn't instead sue 'the retailers that were the most proximate cause of the harm.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the court has repeatedly said 'mere knowledge is not enough' to establish liability. 'You have to intend and take affirmative action,' she said, 'to participate in what they're doing.' Gun violence in Mexico is horrible, and efforts to reduce the southward flow of firearms are sorely needed. The U.S. Justice Department should, for example, aggressively prosecute straw purchasers who legally buy weapons from dealers north of the border and then sell them for big markups to smugglers. Stronger border security should also curtail the cross-border arms traffic. But lawsuits against gunmakers cannot be the solution. Courts are not the proper venue to formulate public policy. Empowering trial lawyers this way would erode growth, slow commerce and undermine American dynamism.
Boston Globe
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court appears skeptical of Mexico's lawsuit against US gunmakers
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they're going to be misused by some subset of people,' Kavanaugh said, citing carmakers and pharmaceutical companies. Advertisement Filed in 2021, the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, has allowed the Mexican government an avenue for a counterargument: that US gun companies share in the blame for violence by drug cartels because their guns make their way to Mexican crime scenes. Mexico asked for some $10 billion in damages. A trial court judge dismissed Mexico's case against six of the defendants on other grounds, leaving the Supreme Court's decision in the case to apply to claims against Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer, and Interstate Arms, a wholesaler. Lawyers for Mexico have cited statistics showing that between 70 percent and 90 percent of guns from Mexican crime scenes come from the United States. They also contend that gun dealers in the states that border Mexico sell twice as many weapons as dealers in other parts of the United States. Noel J. Francisco, a lawyer representing the gun industry, argued that the industry was insulated against such lawsuits by the 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 'Congress' entire purpose was to prohibit lawsuits just like this one,' Francisco said. Advertisement But the law includes a carve-out for claims to proceed if plaintiffs can show that their injuries were directly caused by knowing violations of firearms laws. Mexico argued that its case falls under that exception. This article originally appeared in
The Hill
04-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Supreme Court gravitates toward gun industry in bid to end Mexico lawsuit
The Supreme Court gravitated toward the American firearm industry Tuesday in its fight to end a $10 billion lawsuit brought by the Mexican government over claims the gun makers are fueling cartel violence. The case has become a major battle over the scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which has provided broad immunity to gun makers for two decades despite gun control activists' attempt to repeal it. At oral arguments Tuesday, the justices posed piercing questions to Mexico's attorney about claims that the country's lawsuit falls under an exception to the 2005 law, raising concerns that accepting that position would cause a flood of litigation against the gun industry. 'How is your suit different from the types of suits that prompted the passage of PLCAA,' asked Justice Clarence Thomas. It wasn't only the court's conservatives, like Thomas, who pressed Mexico. 'I'm just wondering whether the PLCAA statue itself is telling us that we don't want the courts to be the ones to be crafting remedies that amount to regulation on this industry. That was really the point of the entire thing,' said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court's three Democratic appointees. 'And so to the extent that we're now reading an exception to allow the very thing that the statute seems to preclude, I'm concerned about that,' she continued. Mexico originally sued seven American firearms manufacturers and one wholesaler in 2021, alleging they aided and abetted violence in Mexico by not doing more stop their guns from falling into cartels' hands. Most of the companies have since been dismissed from the lawsuit on other grounds, but two remain. The companies appealed to the justices after a lower court found Mexico's lawsuit is covered by a narrow exception to PLCAA, which permits lawsuits when a company 'knowingly violated' firearms laws and the violation proximately harmed the plaintiff. 'Petitioners' arguments would rewrite PLCAA and proximate cause law far beyond this case,' Catherine Stetson, who represented Mexico, said at Tuesday's arguments. Though everyone agrees some guns have ultimately turned up at Mexican crime scenes, several justices raised concerns about a lack of specificity in the lawsuit. 'You haven't sued any of the retailers that were the most proximate cause of the harm,' noted Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative nominated to the court by President Trump. 'What you don't have is particular dealers, right?' asked Justice Elena Kagan, another of the court's liberals. 'It's a pretty — there's a lot of dealers, and you're just saying some of them do. But which some of them? I mean, who are they aiding and abetting in this complaint?' Mexico doesn't allege the companies were aware of any particular unlawful sale, but the lawsuit claims the industry is liable because of downstream dealers making illegal sales that end up in Mexico. The companies cast Mexico's argument as an eight-step causal chain, insisting it is too attenuated to claim the exception. 'With respect, there's not a single case in history that comes close to that,' said Noel Francisco, who served as solicitor general during the first Trump administration and represents the firearms companies. The firearms companies are backed by gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), various Republican lawmakers and 27 Republican state attorneys general. Mexico, meanwhile, is backed by various Democratic members of Congress, gun control groups and 16 Democratic state attorneys general. A decision in the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, is expected by early summer.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court weighs Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun makers
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday weighs the fate of a lawsuit the Mexican government filed seeking to hold U.S. gun makers accountable for an epidemic of violence that officials in Mexico say can be traced to their products. The justices will hear oral arguments on the gun companies' request to throw out the lawsuit. The case reaches the court amid increased tensions between American and Mexican leaders following the election of President Donald Trump, who has sought to stem the flow of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, citing drug trafficking and gang violence. Trump has announced new tariffs against Mexico that are due to go into effect Tuesday, and his administration has designated Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum recently responded by saying her country would crack down on gun smuggling from the United States. Democrats in Washington have introduced legislation intended to reduce the flow of guns across the border, which they estimate to total at least 200,000 a year. In the 2021 lawsuit, the Mexican government accused Smith & Wesson, Colt and other companies of deliberately selling guns to dealers who sell products that are often later recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. The government seeks up to $10 billion in damages. Gun dealers, lawyers for Mexico say in court papers, often sell the firearms to "straw purchasers" whose intent is to traffic the guns across the border. The companies even design certain weapons to appeal to cartel members, including a Colt handgun known as the Super El Jefe, the lawyers say. Mexico has suffered as a result, the lawyers argue, with dozens of police officers and military personnel killed or injured. The lawsuit includes negligence and public nuisance claims. The case at the Supreme Court involves two companies — Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms — with other manufacturers, including Glock and Colt, successfully having had claims against them tossed out. At issue is a U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which restricts lawsuits against arms manufacturers. The gunmakers say the law applies to the Mexico lawsuit, meaning the entire complaint should be dismissed. In court papers, lawyers for the gunmakers say the federal law protects them from any liability that results from "criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm by a third party. "It is hard to imagine a suit more clearly barred" by the law, they wrote. Mexico's legal team is focusing on a narrow exception to the liability shield, which allows a lawsuit to go forward if a company has "knowingly violated" a gun law and if that violation was a cause of the harm alleged in a lawsuit. Mexico's lawsuit cannot meet those requirements, the companies say, as its arguments for liability rely on linking a long chain of independent third parties, including the gun dealers and traffickers, to the defendants. A federal judge had ruled for the manufacturers, but the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case last year, saying the liability shield did not extend to Mexico's specific claims. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to hear Mexico's suit against U.S. gun manufacturers
March 4 (UPI) -- The Mexican government's lawsuit against U.S. gun companies is set to go before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. The lawsuit, originally filed in federal court in Massachusetts in 2021, seeks to hold gun manufacturers responsible for violence perpetrated by cartels using firearms trafficked from the United States. The suit was dismissed in September 2022, with the court citing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from being targeted by civil suits stemming from illegal use of their products. The decision was reversed in January 2024 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, which ruled that the lawsuit falls under an exception to the PLCAA that allows manufacturers to be targeted by lawsuits if they knowingly violated the law. Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer serving as co-counsel for Mexico and president of Global Action on Gun Violence, alleged the gun manufacturers are aware of unscrupulous gun dealers selling to cartels. "Manufacturers know who those dealers are, how they're supplying the cartels, and yet they continue to choose to sell their guns through those dealers, and allowing those sales practices," Lowy was quoted as saying by NPR. The Smith & Wesson Brands vs. Estados Unidos Mexicanos case is now set to go before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, marking the high court's first case involving the PLCAA. A decision in the case is expected by summer.
