Supreme Court dismisses Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun companies
By lauraharris // 2025-06-10
Copy
 
  • The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mexico's $10 billion lawsuit against major American gun makers, ruling the companies are protected by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used in crimes.
  • Mexico sued seven gun manufacturers and one wholesaler in 2021, accusing them of contributing to cartel violence by negligently allowing firearms to be trafficked into Mexico.
  • Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court, said Mexico failed to plausibly allege that the companies took deliberate steps to aid illegal gun sales, a necessary requirement to bypass PLCAA's protections under its "predicate exception."
  • The Court ruled that claims regarding the companies' failure to monitor dealers or their marketing tactics (e.g., Spanish-language ads, military-style weapons) did not amount to aiding and abetting under U.S. law.
  • Gun rights groups and Republican lawmakers praised the decision, while gun control advocates and Democratic officials criticized it as a setback in efforts to address cross-border gun trafficking.
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a high-profile lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against major American gun manufacturers, ruling that the companies are protected under a federal law shielding the firearms industry from liability. In 2021, Mexico filed a lawsuit against seven firearms manufacturers and one wholesaler, including industry giants Smith & Wesson and Glock, accusing them of fueling cartel violence by failing to curb illegal gun trafficking. The lawsuit argued that the companies' lax oversight and marketing practices effectively abetted the illegal arms flow into Mexico, contributing to their staggering levels of cartel-related violence. (Related: Mexican Defense Department seeks probe on how cartels acquired high-grade U.S. weapons.) Seeking $10 billion in damages, Mexico also asked the court to impose new restrictions on how U.S. companies advertise and distribute guns. Although most of the companies named in the suit had already been dismissed by lower courts, the Supreme Court intervened after the First Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the case against two companies to proceed. The Supreme Court, however, found that the claims failed to show the companies took active steps to facilitate illegal gun trafficking – a necessary element to overcome PLCAA's protections through its so-called "predicate exception." In line with this, Justice Elena Kagan ruled on Thursday, June 5, that the multi-billion-dollar claim of Mexico against several major U.S. gun makers does not meet the legal threshold required to proceed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That law, enacted in 2005, provides broad legal immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers when crimes are committed with their products. In particular, the Court rejected the notion that the companies' failure to better monitor suspicious dealers or their marketing strategies, such as branding in Spanish or selling military-style weapons, amounted to aiding and abetting illegal gun sales. "The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," Kagan wrote. The ruling effectively ends one of the most ambitious legal efforts to hold U.S. gun makers accountable for violence abroad.

Gun rights advocates celebrate the SC decision

Gun control advocates expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying it underscores the vast legal protections afforded to gun makers in the U.S. and complicates efforts to stem the flow of U.S.-made firearms into Mexico. In contrast, gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association and the Firearms Policy Coalition, celebrated the ruling as a reaffirmation of PLCAA’s protections. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), dozens of Republican lawmakers and 26 GOP state attorneys general had backed the industry's defense, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued the case on behalf of the gun industry, also praised the decision as a "clear affirmation" of Congress' intent. "As the Supreme Court recognized, the lawsuit filed by the government of Mexico is clearly an attempt to do just that and is just as clearly barred under PLCAA," Francisco said. "The narrow exceptions that sometimes apply to PLCAA are not relevant here. Our client makes a legal, constitutionally protected product that millions of Americans buy and use, and we are gratified that the Supreme Court agreed that we are not legally responsible for criminals misusing that product to hurt people, much less smuggling it to Mexico to be used by drug cartels." Watch Glenn Beck explain how the ATF's pistol brace rule would turn 40 million gun owners into criminals below.
This video is from the High Hopes channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Biden calls for stronger gun control laws in the wake of Maine mass shooting – he wants to leave you DEFENSELESS.

Gun manufacturers continue to move out of left-wing states, relocating to gun-friendly regions; this will be of great tactical significance during the coming civil war.

Crytocurrency trying to draw firearms companies, gun sellers away from banks as Biden regime looks to reengage "Operation Choke Point." 

Dr. Steven Hotze and Jared Woodfill discuss lawsuits against GAG RULE in Paxton impeachment – Brighteon.TV.

Wells Fargo cancels prominent Florida gun dealer’s accounts, implies it won’t work with gun companies.

Sources include: ZeroHedge.com TheHill.com Brighteon.com
Copy