A coalition of 28 state attorneys general is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that could expose American gun manufacturers to legal action from Mexico over cartel violence.
At a Glance
- 28 state attorneys general are pushing for the Supreme Court to reverse an appellate court decision
- The decision allows Mexico to sue U.S. gun manufacturers for $10 billion over cartel violence
- The case centers on the interpretation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
- Attorneys general argue the lawsuit threatens U.S. manufacturing and jurisprudence
- The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for the gun industry
Legal Battle Escalates to Supreme Court
The legal landscape surrounding U.S. gun manufacturers has become increasingly complex as a federal appeals panel in Boston allowed a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico to proceed. This decision, which reversed a previous dismissal by a lower court, has set the stage for a high-stakes showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, targeting six major manufacturers including Smith & Wesson, Glock, and Ruger, challenges the immunity provided to gunmakers by federal law passed nearly two decades ago.
At the heart of the dispute is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which shields firearm companies from liability for criminal misuse of their products. Mexico claims an exception in the Act allows its lawsuit, but the coalition of attorneys general argues that the Supreme Court has already rejected the expansive view of “proximate causation” used by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in reviving the case.
Mexico’s Claims and Industry Response
Mexico’s lawsuit contends that U.S. gun manufacturers should be held responsible for the trafficking of firearms into their country, contributing to cartel violence. The Mexican government asserts that 70% of trafficked weapons in the country originate from the U.S., linking these arms to at least 17,000 homicides in 2019. Furthermore, they argue that the damage from trafficked guns equals 1.7% to 2% of Mexico’s GDP.
The gun industry, represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), strongly disagrees with the court’s decision. They argue that Mexico should focus on enforcing its own laws rather than targeting U.S. manufacturers.
Attorneys General Push Back
The coalition of 28 attorneys general, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, is making a forceful case for the Supreme Court to reverse the 1st Circuit’s ruling. They contend that cartel violence is primarily linked to Mexican government policy and that American retail guns are rarely used by cartels. The attorneys general assert that Mexico’s lawsuit lacks both legal and factual basis, viewing it as an attempt to impose foreign preferences on the U.S. through judicial means.
“The Mexican government is responsible for the rampant crime and corruption within their own borders,” said Lawrence Keane, President of NSSF.
Florida Attorney General, Ashley Moody, has taken a particularly strong stance, calling for Mexican cartels to be designated as foreign terrorist organizations and for fentanyl to be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. These moves reflect the broader concerns among conservative leaders about the implications of the lawsuit for U.S. sovereignty and the Second Amendment.
Potential Implications and Future Outlook
The Supreme Court’s decision on this case could have far-reaching consequences for the gun industry and international legal precedents. If the court allows the lawsuit to proceed, it could open the door for other countries to pursue similar legal action against U.S. manufacturers. The case also intersects with broader political discussions, as President-elect Donald Trump has indicated plans to impose sanctions on Mexico, close the border, and target cartels.
