The question of whether a law established in 2005, offering widespread immunity to firearm manufacturers, holds up in a certain lawsuit will be weighed by the judiciary. This legal case suggests the manufacturers may have contributed indirectly to supplying cartels with firearms. The litigation aims to secure damages in the order of billions, based on the allegation that a significant proportion, between 70 to 90 percent, of firearms discovered at crime scenes in Mexico have their origin in the United States. On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to ponder the feasibility of Mexico initiating legal proceedings against U.S. gun makers for their supposed role in facilitating cartel weaponry trafficking.
Mexico lodged a lawsuit against seven firearm manufacturers and a distributor in 2021, holding them accountable for severe violence stemming from illegal arms trafficking from the U.S., primarily due to the demand of drug cartels for military-grade armament. The lawsuit filed by Mexico stated, ‘A torrent of particularly deadly, military-style firearms have been pouring into Mexico, originating from the U.S. for several decades.’ Mexico implicated the defendants for the resulting devastation, stating it as ‘an anticipated outcome of their conscious actions and business strategies.’
Possessing strict firearm control regulations which essentially make it next to impossible for criminals to legally acquire firearms, Mexico’s singular gun outlet reportedly approves fewer than 50 permits annually. Notwithstanding such strict control laws, the country teeters under rampant gun violence. A wide majority of weapons recovered from Mexican crime scenes, ranging between 70 to 90 percent, allegedly originate from the United States, according to the lawsuit. Moreover, it is claimed that gun dealers in the bordering states sell double the amount of firearms compared to dealers in other areas of the nation.
Presiding over the Federal District Court in Boston, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV decided to reject Mexico’s lawsuit, stating that it was obstructed by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law, enacted in 2005, disallows a range of legal actions against makers and distributors of firearms. According to Judge Saylor, the law ‘unambiguously blocks such lawsuits from being initiated in both federal and state courts.’
However, the rejected lawsuit found new life under a unanimous decision from a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, seated in Boston. The panel ruled that the lawsuit made out a case for an exception in the law, which allows claims where a violation of firearm laws directly causes the plaintiff’s injuries. Penning the opinion, Judge William J. Kayatta Jr. emphasized that the current stage of the case obligates the court to give credence to Mexico’s characterization of the defendants’ activities.
Taking into account Mexico’s assertions, ‘the complaint sufficiently intimates that defendants came to the aid of and abetted the knowingly illegal trafficking of their firearms into Mexico,’ Judge Kayatta Jr. wrote. Urging the Supreme Court to take up the case, the firearm manufacturers claimed, ‘Mexico’s suit is unsuited for an American court.’ The legal argument put forth by Mexico was likened to an ‘eight-stage Rube Goldberg sequence, commencing with legal production and sale of firearms in the U.S. and culminating with the damages inflicted upon the Mexican government by the drug cartels.’
In the absence of Supreme Court intervention, the manufacturers warned, ‘Mexico’s multibillion-dollar litigation will cast a shadow over the U.S. firearms industry for years, resulting in costly and onerous scrutiny from a foreign government that is endeavoring to pressurize the industry into accepting numerous firearm control actions repeatedly snubbed by American voters.’ Mexico retorted by accusing the defendants of being tacitly involved in large scale violence.
“The deluge of the petitioner’s firearms moving from U.S. sources to Mexican cartels is not unforeseen,” Mexico’s submission stated. It further read, “Resulting from a conscious and deliberate decision by the petitioners to serve their products to malevolent actors, to turn a blind eye to hazardous and illicit practices that nourish the crime-related gun conduit, and to model and promote their products in manners intended to kindle demand among the cartels.”
Judge Saylor ruled in August to dismiss the case against six of the defendants on separate grounds. Thus, the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case will determine claims against only Smith & Wesson, a firearm manufacturer, and Interstate Arms, a distributor. Titled Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141, this case was one among 13 cases added to the docket by the court on Friday, after the justices’ annual ‘long conference’ on Monday.
This conference entailed discussions on several hundred petitions, seeking review, that had accumulated over their summer hiatus. The court is due to commence its new term from Monday. A correction to this narrative was issued on October 4, 2024: An earlier version had incorrectly referred to the judge of the Federal District Court in Boston. The correct reference is Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, not Dennis F. Saylor.