The U.S. Supreme Court displayed skepticism on Tuesday regarding Mexico’s attempt to hold American gunmakers legally accountable for their firearms that have allegedly fueled drug cartel violence across the border. During a brisk 90-minute oral argument, justices engaged in a critical debate over whether the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States constitutes the “proximate cause” of the injuries allegedly suffered by the Mexican government and its citizens.

Mexico’s Legal Argument

Mexico, which imposes strict regulations on gun sales within its borders, contends that it should be permitted to pursue a civil lawsuit in American courts, seeking billion in damages. The Mexican government argues that U.S. gunmakers have knowingly contributed to the flow of illegal firearms into Mexico, which in turn has exacerbated violence linked to drug trafficking.

Gun Manufacturers’ Defense

In contrast, gun manufacturers assert that their standard business practices are unfairly scrutinized, vehemently denying any awareness that their products are being illegally smuggled into Mexico. The argument brought forth by the gunmakers led to robust exchange with the justices, raising questions about legal precedents and the implications of such claims.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted Mexico’s stance, emphasizing, “We know that a straw seller is going to sell to someone who is going to use the gun illegally… That illegal conduct is going to cause harm, and harm like this that the gun is going to be used in some way to injure people, correct?”

Concerns About Economic Impact

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that accepting Mexico’s theory of aiding and abetting could have detrimental effects on the broader American economy. He articulated that many manufacturers, across various industries, understand there will always be a subset of individuals who misuse their products.

The case arrives at a politically sensitive juncture for both the U.S. and Mexico. Historically, U.S. administrations have pressed Mexico to enhance border security to curb drug and human trafficking, while Mexico demands the U.S. implement effective measures that prevent military-grade firearms from entering its territory.

Cross-Border Implications

The Supreme Court’s deliberation serves as a high-profile stage for Mexico to voice its grievances against its northern neighbor, particularly in light of the recent imposition of tariffs on Mexican imports by the U.S. government.

This case also has the potential to influence the ongoing debate regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the liability of gun manufacturers under U.S. law. A 2005 statute, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), was enacted to protect gunmakers from civil lawsuits related to crimes committed with their products. However, Mexico is leveraging specific exceptions within the law to support its lawsuit.

The Broader Context

The lawsuit holds significance for victims of gun violence in the U.S., including families of those affected by mass shootings, such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. Families have attempted to bring similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers, but this case marks a first in which the Supreme Court will address the application of the PLCAA.

Gun rights advocates argue that imposing liability on a legitimate, regulated industry for the criminal actions of others—particularly in another country—is misguided. They maintain that American manufacturers should not be held liable for the actions of violent criminal organizations.

The “Iron River” of Trafficked Guns

According to estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, between 200,000 to 500,000 firearms made in America are trafficked illegally into Mexico each year. Data from the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention indicates that over 70% of the illegal firearms seized in Mexico from 2013 to 2018 originated from the U.S.

In stark contrast, Mexico maintains only a single gun store, managed by its military, with no private commercial manufacturing or gun shows allowed. As of 2018, just 3,215 private gun licenses had been issued for low-caliber weapons, and illegal gun possession has become one of the leading causes of incarceration in the country, which is frequently among the top three nations in annual gun-related deaths.

The Court’s Considerations and Voices

During the arguments, justices probed the complexities surrounding the “proximate cause” of harm and the long chain of transactions starting from the manufacturers down to the illegal trafficking networks. Chief Justice John Roberts posed a question to the gunmakers’ attorney, asking if there was a threshold percentage of guns allegedly trafficked into Mexico that could alter their legal analysis.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out the absence of lawsuits against the retailers responsible for selling weapons, which may be closer to the alleged harm, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked on the potential implications of the lawsuit, suggesting it might inadvertently impose regulatory constraints on the gun industry that Congress might not intend for courts to determine.

Looking Ahead

As the case, officially designated Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141), moves toward a ruling expected by late June, the implications of the court’s decision could be far-reaching. It not only has the potential to shape the liability of gun manufacturers in future cases but also reflects the ongoing challenges pertaining to cross-border crime, public safety, and the regulation of firearms in the context of international relations.