- The Supreme Court appeared ready to side with U.S. gun manufacturers being sued by Mexico. The companies were being accused of aiding and abetting cartel violence.
- Mexico is suing for $10 billion in damages, even with justices casting serious doubt on whether gun manufacturers are at fault for the actions of others.
- Justices across the aisle seemed to cast doubts on the lawsuit.
Full Story
The Supreme Court appeared ready to rule in favor of U.S. gun manufacturers who were sued by Mexico and accused of aiding and abetting cartel violence. Mexico is suing for $10 billion in damages, but the justices cast serious doubt on whether licensed gun manufacturers are at fault for the actions of others.
“If Mexico is right… Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers, since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash,” Noel Francisco, the attorney for gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Glock, Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Beretta and others, said.
Point phone camera here
How bad is the problem?
Approximately 200,000 guns are smuggled every year from the United States into Mexico, according to Mexican estimates.
Francisco argued the gun manufacturers are not aiding and abetting, saying that they aren’t even partly responsible because there are a number of intervening, independent crimes that take place before the gun is used to commit acts of violence in Mexico.
It’s called a chain of causation: the gun manufacturers distribute firearms to licensed distributors who sell to licensed retailers. Then, some retailers transfer the firearms illegally to what are called straw purchasers, or fake buyers who give the weapons to traffickers who smuggle the weapons across the border and give them to cartels.
The straw purchase and the trafficking are separate crimes that lead to the murders that Mexico wants the gun manufacturers to pay for.
“Their theory is that by simply knowing that some percentage of retailers may be doing something illegal, that somehow puts us on the hook for everything that the retailers are doing,” Francisco told the justices.
What did Mexico argue?
Attorneys for Mexico argued the gun manufacturers are responsible because even if an independent criminal act breaks the chain, it was foreseeable, and manufacturers have knowledge that it happens.
They cited the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects lawful businesses from liability for the unlawful misuse of their product; there’s an exception for businesses engaged in lawful commerce.
“[Distributors] are knowingly supplying the dealers who we know sell unlawfully across the board,” Catherine Stetson, the attorney representing Mexico, said.
That’s when Stetson lost Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s liberal members who typically rule in favor of limiting gun laws.
What were the justices saying?
“But knowledge is not enough,” Sotomayor said. “We have repeatedly said mere knowledge is not enough; you have to aid and abet.”
“There are lots of dealers, and you’re just saying they know that some of them do, but which some of them?” Kagan asked. Who are they aiding and abetting?”
Jackson pointed to some of the changes the Mexican government is asking for in the U.S. gun industry, including changes to safety practices, distribution and marketing.
“All of the things that you ask for in this lawsuit would amount to different kinds of regulatory constraints that I’m thinking Congress didn’t want the courts to be the ones to impose,” Jackson said.
Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
The active culpable participation here is continuing to sell guns to rogue dealers that you know are the problem dealers.
There were multiple questions about bad actors in the gun retail business who are known as “red-flag dealers.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered why they haven’t been identified in the suit or sued themselves.
Sovereign nations are allowed to file lawsuits in the United States. The justices have previously ruled they must be treated exactly as any other plaintiff.
The justices should release a final decision on the case by mid-June 2025.
Tags: Amy Coney Barrett, Drug cartels, Elena Kagan, Gun control, Gun laws, Gun safety, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Mexico, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court, U.S. Congress
[Ray Bogan]
The Supreme Court appeared ready to rule in favor of US gun manufacturers who were sued by Mexico and accused of aiding and abetting cartel violence. Mexico is suing for $10 billion in damages but the justices cast serious doubt on whether licensed gun manufacturers are at fault for the actions of others.
Noel Francisco: if Mexico is right Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers, since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”
Lawyers for the gun manufacturers argued they are not aiding and abetting or even partly responsible because there are a number of intervening, independent crimes that take place before the gun is used to commit acts of violence in Mexico.
It’s called a chain of causation, the gun manufacturers distribute firearms to licensed distributors who sell to licensed retailers. Some retailers transfer the firearms illegally to what are called straw purchasers, or fake buyers who give the weapons to traffickers who smuggle the weapons across the border and give them to cartels.
The straw purchase and the trafficking are separate crimes that lead to the murders that Mexico wants the gun manufacturers to pay for.
Noel Francisco: “their theory is that by simply knowing that some percentage of retailers may be doing something illegal, that somehow puts us on the hook for everything that the retailers are doing.”
Attorneys for Mexico argued the gun manufacturers are responsible because even if an independent criminal act breaks the chain, it was foreseeable and manufacturers have knowledge that it happens.
They cited the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which protects lawful businesses from liability for the unlawful misuse of their product; there’s an exception for businesses engaged in lawful commerce.
Stetson: “what it says the distributors are doing, including the one that’s named in this complaint, are knowingly supplying the dealers who we know sell unlawfully across the board.”
That’s when Stetson lost Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, the court’s liberal members who typically rule in favor of limiting gun laws.
Sotomayor: But knowledge is not enough. We have repeatedly said mere knowledge is not enough. You have to aid and abet.
Kagan: I mean, there are lots of dealers, and you’re just saying they know that some of them do, but which some of them? I mean, who are they aiding and abetting?
Stetson: The active culpable participation here is continuing to sell guns to rogue dealers that you know are the problem dealers.
KBJ: All of the things that you ask for in this lawsuit would amount to different kinds of regulatory constraints that I’m thinking Congress didn’t want the courts to be the ones to impose.
There were multiple questions about bad actors in the gun retail business who are known as “red-flag dealers”. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered why they haven’t been identified in the suit, or sued themselves.
The Justices should release a final decision on the case by mid-June.
Straight to your inbox.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
