WASHINGTON (CN) - The Supreme Court helped U.S. gun manufacturers escape legal consequences for boosting Mexican cartel violence on Thursday, reinforcing an immunity shield protecting firearm sellers from liability for harm solely caused by others.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court said Mexico could not sue American gunmakers whose guns end up in the hands of cartels. The justices didn't doubt that manufacturers know illegal sales of their firearms take place, but found Mexico hadn't proved that the companies participated in those sales.
"When a company merely knows that 'some bad actors' are taking 'advantage' of its products for criminal purposes, it does not aid and abet," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. "And that is so even if the company could adopt measures to reduce their users' downstream crimes."
Mexico's lawsuit aimed at a crime pipeline illegally moving U.S. firearms across the border to cartels. According to Mexico, American gun manufacturers knowingly feed into the "iron river," facilitating violence and drug trafficking across the nation.
In January, the Justice Department reported a 25% increase in trace requests for guns used in crimes from Mexican authorities in recent years. Over three-fourths of crime guns recovered in Mexico are traced to four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
Mexico sued seven gun manufacturers in 2021, seeking to pull the linchpin from the crime gun pipeline. U.S. gunmakers are an essential component of cartel violence, Mexico argued, because it maintains strict firearm regulations and only has one gun store in the entire nation.
Among the U.S. manufacturers being sued are Smith & Wesson Brands, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Beretta U.S.A. Corp, Glock, Sturm, Ruger & Company and Colt's Manufacturing Company.
Mexico says the gunmakers sell to cartels through straw purchasers - third parties that buy guns legally from a licensed dealer and then traffic them across the border. The gun manufacturers not only know they're selling to cartel dealers, Mexico claims, but they also deliberately and systematically support the unlawful trade.
During oral arguments at the Supreme Court in March, the justices were broadly skeptical of Mexico's claims.
That skepticism bore out in the court's ruling, finding that Mexico's suit directly violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. Congress enacted the statute after a spate of lawsuits seeking to hold manufacturers liable for third parties' misuse of firearms.
"Mexico's suit closely resembles the ones Congress had in mind: It seeks to recover from American firearms manufacturers for the downstream damage Mexican cartel members wreak with their guns," Kagan wrote.
Mexico argued that its suit fell under the PLCAA's exception for accomplice liability, but Kagan said such cases must involve the gun manufacturers' intentional participation.
"So this suit remains subject to PLCAA's general bar: An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico's, it is founded on a third party's criminal use of the company's product," Kagan wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote a concurring opinion to stress the need for future litigation on what a plaintiff must show to qualify for the PLCAA's exception.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, chimed in with her own concurrence. Mexico's lawsuit failed to accuse gunmakers of any direct violations of the PLCAA, Jackson said, instead only that manufacturers facilitated dealers' unspecified downstream violations.
"Devoid of nonconclusory allegations about particular statutory violations, Mexico's lawsuit seeks to turn the courts into common-law regulators," Jackson wrote. "But Congress passed PLCAA to preserve the primacy of the political branches - both state and federal - in deciding which duties to impose on the firearms industry."
Gun control advocates said the ruling ended Mexico's lawsuit, but not their fight against holding gun companies accountable.
"The Justices did not give the gun industry the broad immunity it sought," David Pucino, legal director and deputy chief counsel at Giffords Law Center, said in a statement. "Instead, they reaffirmed that the victims of gun industry misconduct can hold lawbreakers accountable in court. All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice."
Source: Courthouse News Service
