High Noon at the Supreme Court: Guns v. Mexico

This article analyzes the Supreme Court appeal in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, argued on March 4, 2025. This unusual gun litigation does not involve the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms. Instead, this is the Court’s first appeal concerning interpretation of the 2005 federal firearms immunity statute, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, (15 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq.). The Court will consider whether firearms production and sales in the U.S. is a proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government from drug cartel violence in Mexico, and whether the industry’s firearms U.S. production and sale amounts to unlawful aiding and abetting because the firearms companies allegedly knew some of their products were unlawfully trafficked.

In August 2021, the Mexican government sued seven firearms manufacturers and one distributor in Massachusetts federal district court, asserting  nine claims and seeking damages and injunctive relief for the expenses the government incurred in addressing the gun violence consequences from firearms trafficking. Mexico contended the defendants’ negligent marketing, distribution, and sales practices allowed traffickers to obtain high-capacity firearms. Mexico also asserted a public nuisance claim because the gun dealers were engaged in straw sales, and despite knowing the practice, continued to supply guns to these dealers. The allegations included damages attributable to the costs to Mexico of increasing police and military forces and the judicial system. Damages were estimated in the range of $10 billion dollars.

Mexico asserted that PLCCA did not apply because Mexico’s damages occurred outside the U.S. but if the court were to apply PLCAA, several exceptions vitiated PLCAA immunity. The complaint asserted a claim for negligence per se, an exception to liability under PLCAA that applies when sellers violate any law in gun sales.

The defendants requested dismissal of Mexico’s lawsuit. They argued: (1) that PLCAA provided the defendants with immunity from civil lawsuits, (2) that the Mexican government lacked standing to sue, and (3) that the Massachusetts court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants without sufficient Massachusetts contacts to support jurisdiction. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, a lack of Article III standing, and a lack of personal jurisdiction. On September 30, 2022, the Massachusetts district court dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit stating that “while the Court has considerable sympathy for the people of Mexico” the Mexico claims did not outweigh PLCAA protections to gun manufacturers.

On January 22, 2024, the First Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s decision, reinstating Mexico’s lawsuit. The court addressed PLCAA’s extraterritorial reach, the predicate statute exception, and Mexico’s plausible pleading of claims within PLCAA’s predicate statute exception. In a surprising holding, the court concluded, as a matter of first impression, that PLCAA’s predicate statute exception included common law as well as statutory claims.

The court agreed that PLCAA’s limitations applied to foreign government lawsuits against firearm defendants for harm outside the U.S. The court rejected Mexico’s argument that PLCAA had no extraterritorial effect. Applying PLCCA, the court held that Mexico plausibly pleaded claims that came within PLCAA’s exceptions to immunity, reversing the district court’s holding that PLCAA barred Mexico’s common law claims. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that Mexico’s claims were not for statutory violations, that Mexico failed to adequately plead predicate statute violations, and failed to adequately plead proximate cause. Therefore, PLCAA did not prevent its litigation from proceeding.

The Smith & Wesson firearms lawsuit is the first PLCAA litigation to reach the Supreme Court. It will involve the Court in a statutory exegesis of the PLCAA previsions relating to proximate causation and its “aiding and abetting” language. The appeal is signally important because if the Court agrees with Mexico’s position on these statutory questions, this could open a pathway for additional litigation against firearms industry defendants.