By: Nick Wilson | americanprogress.org

The Supreme Court’s decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos will either hold U.S. gun manufacturers accountable for fueling gun violence in Mexico or empower an unchecked firearm industry to break the law without consequence.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump announced he would delay imposing 25 percent tariffs on imports from Mexico and “work to stop the trafficking of high-powered weapons to Mexico” in exchange for Mexico sending 10,000 national guard troops to the border. In addition to this diplomatic strategy to stop the enormous harm caused by U.S. guns being illegally trafficked across the southern border, Mexico is pursuing a legal strategy to hold gun manufacturers and sellers accountable for arming violent cartels who drive the country’s drug trade and force people to flee their homes in search of basic safety and security.

A small number of gun dealers are responsible for supplying the illegal gun market in both the United States and in Mexico. By knowingly supplying military-style firearms to irresponsible dealers, the gun industry continues to prioritize maximizing profits at the expense of the safety of the American people and the country’s neighbors. On March 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, a case filed by the Mexican government accusing seven American gunmakers of knowingly aiding and abetting illegal firearm sales to gun traffickers.

If the Mexican government is successful, it will make Mexico safer and advance U.S. priorities, such as reducing fentanyl in communities and addressing key drivers of migration into the United States such as violence and insecurity. However, the gun company defendants hope to use this case to obtain a ruling from this far-right Supreme Court that would make it difficult or impossible for survivors of gun violence to sue them for misconduct.

Mexico’s reasoning for bringing this lawsuit

There are only two gun stores in Mexico, both of which are on military bases, compared with nearly 10,000 gun retailers in U.S. states bordering Mexico. Despite strong gun laws and a lack of gun stores, gun-related homicides in Mexico rose to 23,000 in 2019. The share of homicides in Mexico committed with a firearm increased from 15 percent in 1997 to 25 percent in 2004 and then soared to 69 percent by 2021. The Mexican government’s complaint states that the tenfold increase in gun-related homicides in the country coincided with the expiration of the U.S. assault weapons ban in 2004 and an increase in U.S. gun production that began in 2005. In 2023, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives received 26,061 crime gun trace requests from Mexican authorities, a nearly 25 percent increase from the 20,868 requests received in 2021. These guns were not lawfully exported. Instead, they were purchased from a gun dealer in the United States near the border and illegally trafficked before being recovered at a crime scene in Mexico.

Responding to the pleas of mothers who have lost multiple sons to violence and forced disappearances by violent groups armed with U.S. guns, leaders in Mexico are using every avenue—diplomacy, law enforcement, and litigation—to stop the deadly flow of U.S. guns.

Lack of gun industry accountability makes the United States less safe

The gun industry hopes the media narrative around this case will be about the Second Amendment rights of individual gun buyers. No matter the outcome of the case, Americans’ ability to lawfully buy guns will not be impeded. This case is about improving public safety by reducing illegal gun trafficking and increasing accountability for bad actors who choose to break the law. Beginning in the 1990s, more than 40 cities brought lawsuits against gunmakers. In 2005, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which grants limited immunity to gun manufacturers, dealers, and advertisers in civil litigation. Gun manufacturers are hoping the conservative Supreme Court will cite the PLCAA in this case as a reason to ignore the obvious harms the gun industry has inflicted on Mexico.

The PLCAA does not protect gun manufacturers or sellers whose unlawful conduct harms an innocent third party, and it allows gun violence victims to bring claims if they acted unlawfully. While the act makes it harder and more expensive for survivors to file lawsuits against the gun industry, lower courts have repeatedly recognized that the law does not shield gunmakers or dealers whose unlawful conduct foreseeably contributes to the criminal misuse of their products. For example, a Wisconsin court did not throw out a lawsuit against the retailer Badger Guns after a store clerk advised a “straw purchaser” on how to illegally purchase a gun for a teenager that was later used to shoot two police officers. Additionally, a New York court refused to dismiss a lawsuit based on the PLCAA involving a store that sold firearms to a straw purchaser who immediately gave it to a felon who then used it to kill firefighters in an ambush.

  #BorderSecurity, #CrimePrevention, #FirearmRegulation, #GunControl, #GunIndustryAccountability, #GunLaws, #GunPolicy, #GunTrafficking, #GunViolence, #LegalAccountability, #PublicSafety, #SCOTUS, #SecondAmendment, #SmithAndWessonCase, #USMexicoRelations