The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit brought by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers, claiming they are responsible for gun violence in Mexico. The southern neighbors are seeking $10 billion in damages.
The lawsuit was first filed in 2022 when it was dismissed by a U.S. district court. It was revived in 2024 when the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found it “plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt” from the U.S.’ Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The Act allows lawsuits if it’s deemed the harm at issue stems from gun manufacturers’ knowing violation of U.S. law.
Last October the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It accuses six gun companies of negligent practices that allow more than 500,000 guns annually to reach Mexican drug cartels leading to gun violence in Mexico.
“This is laughable and shameful the way the Mexican government is handling the crisis in its own country with cartel violence. It isn’t by cracking down on their cartels – it’s by suing gun manufacturers in the United States,” Gerard Filitti, senior counsel with The Lawfare Project, said on American Family Radio Tuesday.
What could happen with a Mexico victory
Laughable perhaps, but the case would have ramifications for gun rights in the U.S. should the Supreme Court side with Mexico.
The High Court has consistently upheld Second Amendment rights, but “if no gun manufacturer wants to actually manufacture and sell guns because of liability, those Second Amendment rights become meaningless,” Filitti said.
He told show host Jenna Ellis that Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum needs to focus on the cartels, not U.S. companies, to cure her country’s violence problem.
“Even if they were to win, I’m going to bet that most of that money finds its way into the pockets of the cartels. It's really meant to misdirect and not to do anything about what’s actually plaguing Mexico,” Filitti argued.
Trump in his first week back in office designated the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), exerting maximum pressure on Mexico to combat drug trafficking and the fentanyl crisis at the southern border. That designation, among other things, allows the U.S. to freeze cartel assets in U.S. financial institutions.
Mexico has a solid foundation to bring the case, Filitti acknowledged, but he noted two key questions are to be considered.
“The issue is whether it can establish proximate cause that the gun manufacturers could foresee that their practices would cause cartel violence in Mexico," he explained. "At the same time, it's a question of whether what the gun manufacturers are doing is arguably aiding and abetting the cartels in Mexico. Those are the questions that the Supreme Court is looking at.”
Mexico claims “deceptive practices,” and its case depends on threading the needle on wording within the law that holds gun companies accountable in advertising, design or elsewhere in the “stream of commerce that opens them up to liability,” Filitti said.
“That was tested in the Sandy Hook [school shooting] case, and the plaintiffs actually did get a measure of relief, but those are very narrow exceptions. It’s a stretch.”
Filitti compared the case to liability for baseball bat manufacturers, whose product could be used in an assault; or car makers, whose product could cause loss of life in road accidents.
“If the court accepts Mexico’s reasoning, then any manufacturer could be liable for anything that is even remotely foreseeable no matter how bizarre a consequence of using that product,” he said.
Filitti also contends that Mexican officials – with the support of many in the U.S. – have turned to a “political stunt” because they fear the cartels and don’t want to be killed for actually holding them accountable in Mexico.
U.S. leftists on board with Mexico
More than a dozen state attorneys general – California, New York, Massachusetts and others – have written amicus briefs to the courts in support of Mexico’s case. Cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and San Antonio have joined the cause as well.
“I feel very encouraged because this means that what we are doing as a government is worth doing,” said Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, principal legal adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, via The Trace. “We are confirming that the missing link in this whole equation of illicit trafficking is the gun companies – and I think that’s recognized on both sides of the border.”
The briefs focus primarily on the question of whether the gun industry’s special legal immunity is applicable for this lawsuit.
“We’ve seen a lot of support from left-wing anti-gun groups, the same groups that have been from various nefarious actors over the years. It may be Mexico's lawsuit, but you're seeing a lot of arguments coming from left-wing states and left-leaning political groups that are participating in the process on Mexico's side,” Filitti pointed out.
