By John Kruzel, Blake Brittain
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy on Tuesday toward a bid by two American gun companies to throw out the Mexican government’s lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal by firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms of a lower court’s ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed on the grounds that Mexico has plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales, harming its government.
The case comes before the Supreme Court at a fraught time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues tariffs on Mexican goods and accuses Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the border.
The companies have argued that Mexico’s suit, filed in Boston in 2021, should be dismissed under a U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The 2005 law broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these protections.
Mexico claims that the companies unlawfully and deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to Mexican cartels. Mexico also accuses them of unlawfully designing and marketing guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among cartels.
The companies argue that they make and sell lawful products.
"If Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and 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 lawyer arguing for the gun companies, told the justices.
Some justices echoed this concern.
"Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they’re going to be misused by some subset of people," conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Catherine Stetson, the lawyer arguing for Mexico. "They know that to a certainty, that it’s going to be pharmaceuticals, cars - what you can name, lots of products. So that’s a real concern, I think for me, about accepting your theory of aiding and abetting liability."
’THE BEGINNING OF THE BEGINNING’
The Supreme Court’s task is merely to decide whether the case can proceed, Stetson said.
"We are here at the beginning of the beginning of this case. This court need not vouch for Mexico’s allegations, but it must assume they are true," Stetson said. "Mexico should be given a chance to prove its case."
According to the lawsuit, gun violence fueled by trafficked American-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico, and forced its government to incur high costs on healthcare, law enforcement and the military. Most gun-related homicides in Mexico, a country with strict firearms laws, involve trafficked U.S. weapons, according to court papers.
Mexico is seeking unspecified monetary damages and a court order requiring the companies to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."
To avoid being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico must plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Stetson on why Mexico did not sue specific gun dealers when these retailers were "the most proximate cause of the harm." Stetson said Mexico’s lawsuit has "many, many paragraphs that specifically identify rogue dealers" found to have "sold guns in bulk to traffickers that go across the border."
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that Mexico is seeking relief that U.S. courts cannot authorize.
"All of the things that you asked for in this lawsuit" - like changes to gun industry safety, distribution and marketing practices - "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 told Stetson.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito pressed Stetson on whether the Mexican government’s legal theory in the case could actually be used against it.
"There are Americans who think that Mexican government officials are contributing to a lot of illegal conduct here (in the United States). So suppose that one of the 50 states sued the government of Mexico for aiding and abetting illegal conduct within the state’s borders that causes the state to incur law enforcement costs, welfare costs, other costs," Alito told Stetson. "Would your client be willing to litigate that case in the courts of the United States?"
A ruling is expected by the end of June.