Buckeye Reporter

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled against Mexico in its lawsuit targeting Smith & Wesson and six other gun manufacturers. The case centered on claims that these companies facilitated firearm trafficking to Mexican drug cartels. However, the court found that Mexico's arguments did not meet the criteria for exceptions under U.S. law.

Mexico's lawsuit aimed to hold the gunmakers accountable by invoking the predicate exception within the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This exception allows lawsuits if a company knowingly violates laws related to firearm sales or marketing, contributing directly to harm. Mexico argued that the gunmakers designed products appealing to cartels and made serial numbers easy to remove.

The initial ruling at District Court level dismissed Mexico's claims, but this was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which sided with Mexico. The Supreme Court has now reversed this decision.

Justice Elena Kagan explained that allowing Mexico's suit would undermine PLCAA’s purpose, stating: “Held: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit.”

The court referenced two previous cases—Direct Sales Co. v. United States and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh—to support its decision. In both instances, companies were not held liable due to lack of direct involvement or knowledge of illegal activities.

The Supreme Court concluded that design choices cited by Mexico as appealing to cartel members are also popular among American consumers and do not constitute grounds for liability.

This decision sends the case back to the First Circuit Court with instructions to rule in favor of Smith & Wesson and other defendants.

Republished with permission from AmmoLand.