The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday in favor of U.S. gun manufacturers and blocked a liability lawsuit brought by the government of Mexico, which sought to hold the companies accountable for the trafficking of their weapons south of the border to fuel violence by the cartels.
The government argued in its historic lawsuit that American firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta and Colt, were “aiding and abetting” the illicit flow of weapons across the border.
Mexico sought $10 billion in damages, court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns.
MORE: Supreme Court likely to shoot down Mexico’s $10B lawsuit against US gun makers
Justice Elena Kagan said in her opinion that federal law grants broad immunity to U.S. gun companies and unquestionably protects them from Mexico’s claims.
“Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico’s complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not,” Kagan wrote.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 bars lawsuits against any gun manufacturer over the illegal acts of a person using one of a manufacturer’s guns. But it does create an exception for claims involving a gun company’s alleged knowing violation of rules governing the sale and marketing of firearms.
Mexico argues that its lawsuit fell under the exception and was seeking $10 billion in damages and court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns.
MORE: Supreme Court battle spotlights guns trafficked from US into Mexico
“Mexico has not met that bar,” Kagan wrote for the court. “Its complaint does not plausibly allege the kind of ‘conscious . . . and culpable participation in another’s wrongdoing’ needed to make out an aiding-and-abetting charge.”
“When a company merely knows that some bad actors are taking advantage of its products for criminal purposes, it does not aid and abet. And that is so even if the company could adopt measures to reduce their users’ downstream crimes,” Kagan concluded.
The decision is the first time the high court has weighed in on the sweeping gunmaker immunity that Congress enacted aimed at protecting the industry.
Mexico has only one gun store, but is awash in millions of American-made weapons, most funneled into the country by straw purchasers in the U.S. By one estimate, at least 200,000 guns flow south of the border each year.
“Today’s decision will end Mexico’s lawsuit against the gun industry, but it does not affect our ability and resolve to hold those who break the law accountable,” said David Pucino, the legal director and deputy chief counsel at GIFFORDS Law Center. “All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice.”
Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico’s Foreign Ministry, said that they are “disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s decision.
“The Mexican Government will continue to do everything in its power to protect Mexicans and to stop the crime gun pipeline,” Olabuenaga said in a statement.
Jonathan Lowey, president of Global Action on Gun Violence and backer of the Mexico case, said the decision is “the clearest evidence yet that the gun industry’s special interest get-out-court-free card must be revoked.”
“The Court made clear that the door to accountability for the gun industry is not shut, and we look forward to working with Mexico further to stop the crime gun pipeline that makes Mexicans and Americans less safe,” Lowey said in a statement.
