Supreme Court Rejects Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Manufacturers, Upholding PLCAA. The unanimous ruling ends Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against US firearm companies, dealing a setback to gun control advocates. The court found Mexico failed to prove the manufacturers knowingly aided and abetted cartels, upholding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)
Supreme Court Rejects Mexico's Gun Manufacturer Lawsuit: A blow to gun control advocates, the court unanimously ruled against Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. firearm companies, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The ruling ends Mexico's attempt to hold manufacturers accountable for gun violence stemming from alleged illegal arms sales to drug cartels
Supreme Court Rejects Mexico's $10 Billion Gun Lawsuit Against US Manufacturers. The unanimous ruling ends Mexico's attempt to hold US firearm companies accountable for allegedly aiding Mexican drug cartels, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The Court found Mexico's claims of "aiding and abetting" lacked sufficient evidence to overcome PLCAA protections
Supreme Court Rejects Mexico's Gun Manufacturer Lawsuit, Upholding PLCAA. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. firearm manufacturers, siding with the companies' argument that the suit violates the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The Court found Mexico failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of manufacturers "aiding and abetting" drug cartels
Supreme Court Rejects Mexico's Gun Manufacturer Lawsuit, Citing PLCAA. Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. firearm companies, alleging they knowingly aided Mexican cartels, was dismissed. The Court ruled the lawsuit violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), finding insufficient evidence of manufacturers' direct involvement in cartel crimes beyond legal firearm sales. The justices determined Mexico failed to demonstrate "aiding and abetting," as required to overcome PLCAA protections
Justices sided with the companies, ruling that because Mexico didn’t sufficiently show that the manufacturers “aided and abetted” the cartels, the country’s lawsuit violates PLCAA.
Mexico “does not pinpoint … any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted” in to prove that the companies aided and abetted the cartels, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion, arguing the government’s case is instead based on “general” accusations that aren’t enough to prove aiding and abetting.
“It is far from clear” that gun companies simply selling firearms to known cartel arms dealers could ever constitute aiding and abetting, Kagan argued, and Mexico’s arguments are too general to sufficiently prove its case, noting the government “does not confront that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, and its complaint does not name alleged bad-apple dealers or provide grounds for thinking that anyone up the supply chain often acquires that information.”
Justices’ ruling against the Mexican government could have broader implications for victims of gun violence, gun control advocates warned prior to the court’s decision coming out. Democratic lawmakers argued in a court filing that the PLCAA’s exception allowing some lawsuits against gun companies is an “important deterrent” for gun manufacturers, noting any decision that restricts lawsuits under that exemption could “deprive victims of gun violence and their families of what is often the only practical recourse they have.” The court’s ruling on Thursday does not directly weaken the PLCAA and applies only to the Mexican government’s case, though it will likely be referenced by future courts in how they consider whether lawsuits should be allowed under that exemption in the law.
While they weren’t a party in the lawsuit, Thursday’s ruling is also a win for Republican politicians, who filed court briefs strongly opposing Mexico’s case. A group of GOP lawmakers led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, claimed the litigation was “an affront to American sovereignty,” alleging the Mexican government was trying to “manipulate American courts” into imposing the country’s comparatively stricter gun control laws on the U.S. A coalition of GOP state attorneys general, along with Arizona’s legislature, also submitted a brief opposing Mexico’s case, claiming the Mexican government was “impos[ing]
Mexico’s lawsuit alleges U.S. firearm manufacturers know full well their products are being sold to drug cartels in Mexico, despite the companies claiming otherwise. The government alleges gun companies have taken steps that help their products be sold to cartels, such as intentionally selling to dealers known to work with the criminal organizations. Manufacturers also market firearms that intentionally cater to the cartels, the Mexican government claims, like Mexico-themed pistols engraved with a quote the government notes is a “particular favorite” of the cartels. The firearm manufacturers oppose those allegations, claiming Mexico is just taking aim at “how the American firearms industry has openly operated in broad daylight for years” and is using the lawsuit to try and force harsher gun control restrictions than what U.S. law requires. The Mexican government “faults the defendants for producing common firearms like the AR-15; for allowing their products to hold more than ten rounds; [and]
The PLCAA was passed in 2005 and broadly prohibits manufacturers of firearms or firearm components from facing any civil lawsuits that stem from the “criminal or unlawful misuse” of their products. In addition to the clause allowing lawsuits if companies “knowingly” help aid and abet crimes, the law also states companies can still be sued for breach of contract, if anyone dies or gets injured due to a defect in the product’s manufacturing or design, or if the company commits negligence by supplying their product to someone whom the company knows “is likely to, and does, use the [firearm]” in order to harm themselves or others. Gun control advocacy groups have long been staunchly opposed to the law, with the Giffords Law Center arguing the PLCAA has “helped to shield this profitable industry from facing basic financial incentives to better protect public health and safety” and “left victims of gun violence who are harmed by wrongful firearm industry conduct without any measure of compensation or justice.”
The court’s ruling comes after President Donald Trump has tried to stop Mexico’s drug cartels from bringing fentanyl into the U.S., including by imposing tariffs on some of the country’s imports and labeling the cartels as terrorist organizations. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum claimed in February that the country’s government could use Trump’s terrorist designation to seek even harsher penalties for the gun manufacturers, saying, “If they declare these criminal groups as terrorists, then we’ll have to expand our US lawsuit.” The leader suggested the country was prepared to file an amended lawsuit in the case seeking to hold the companies liable for alleged complicity with terrorist groups—though Thursday’s ruling killing the lawsuit means that will not happen.
The Mexico case was one of two major gun cases the Supreme Court took up this term, with justices ruling in March to uphold Biden-era restrictions on “ghost guns” that can be purchased as a kit and assembled at home, making them harder to trace. The 6-3 conservative court has faced widespread scrutiny for its handling of gun issues in recent years: Justices broadly weakened gun restrictions in a 2022 case over New York’s concealed carry law, which led to gun laws being rolled back nationwide. During its term last year, the court upheld restrictions on domestic abusers owning guns, but also struck down the federal ban on “bump stocks” that allow firearms to function like automatic weapons.
Source: Original Article