Supreme Court must decide whether Mexico can sue firearms manufacturers for cartel violence

The case, revived by a federal appeals court, challenges the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law that generally protects gun manufacturers from civil liability when their products are used in criminal activity. A lower court initially dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit based on this law, but the 1st Circuit Court ruled that Mexico’s claims fit within an exemption to the PLCAA, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

Mexico argues that U.S. gun manufacturers, such as Smith & Wesson, are responsible for enabling the illicit flow of firearms across the border by marketing their products in a way that appeals to cartels and by failing to implement security measures, such as tamper-resistant serial numbers. . They also allege that these companies are complicit in supplying firearms to known criminal networks.

Gun manufacturers are pushing back, citing the 2023 Supreme Court ruling Twitter, Inc. against Taamnehwhich ruled that the social media platform was not liable for aiding and abetting terrorist activities by simply hosting ISIS-related content. The manufacturers argue that they cannot be held responsible for crimes committed by third parties with their products.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINATOR

This case, which could redefine the scope of liability protection for the firearms industry, comes as the Supreme Court tackles other key issues this term, including reverse discrimination, nuclear waste storage and the death penalty.

The decision in this case could have far-reaching consequences for international relations and the liability of firearms distributors.