Supreme Court appears skeptical of Mexico’s lawsuit against US gunmakers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared skeptical Tuesday that the Mexican government could legally sue U.S. gunmakers over claims that they share the blame for violence by drug cartels.

Mexico argued that the American gun industry bore responsibility for the violence by creating and selling firearms that made their way across the border into the hands of criminal gangs. Arguing that the violence was a direct result of the gunmakers’ actions, a lawyer for Mexico told the justices that the country should be able to sue despite a 2005 law that prohibited most lawsuits against gun manufacturers for injuries caused by firearms.

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to sum up doubts about the lawsuit by asking about the broader implications if Mexico succeeded in arguing that manufacturers acting lawfully could be held responsible for illegal behavior by cartels, an outcome that he worried could have “destructive effects on the American economy.”

“Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they’re going to be misused by some subset of people,” Kavanaugh said, citing carmakers and pharmaceutical companies.

Filed in 2021, the case, Smith &Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, has allowed the Mexican government an avenue for a counterargument — that U.S. gun companies share in the blame for violence by drug cartels because their guns make their way to Mexican crime scenes. Mexico asked for some $10 billion in damages. A trial court judge dismissed Mexico’s case against six of the defendants on other grounds, leaving the Supreme Court’s decision in the case to apply to claims against Smith &Wesson, a gun manufacturer, and Interstate Arms, a wholesaler.

Lawyers for Mexico have cited statistics showing that between 70% and 90% of guns from Mexican crime scenes come from the United States. They also contend that gun dealers in the states that border Mexico sell twice as many weapons as dealers in other parts of the United States.

Noel J. Francisco, a lawyer representing the gun industry, argued that the industry was insulated against such lawsuits by the 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

“Congress’ entire purpose was to prohibit lawsuits just like this one,” Francisco said.

But the law includes a carve-out for claims to proceed if plaintiffs can show that their injuries were directly caused by knowing violations of firearms laws. Mexico argued that its case falls under that exception.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2025 The New York Times Company