Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos and the Future of Transnational Gun Trafficking Liability

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos during the 2024-2025 docket season. The decision of the lawsuit will determine whether U.S. gun manufacturers can be held liable for armed crimes committed outside of U.S. territory by Mexican crime rings using their weapons. The specific rationale provided by the Mexican government, the respondent of the case, is that Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. is guilty of proximate causation as well as aiding and abetting Mexican cartels in committing violence against the Mexican state. Given U.S. gun manufacturers’ knowledge that they are selling to known arms suppliers to Mexican cartels, coupled with the monetary burdens assumed by the Mexican government in response to increased gun violence across the country, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s “predicate exemption” indicates that the U.S. gun manufacturers listed in the lawsuit are not exempt from legal consequence. As such, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Mexican government, its decision would be warranted.

Central to the Supreme Court case is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, otherwise known as the PLCAA. The bill establishes a series of guidelines that determine the civil and criminal liability of U.S. gun manufacturing companies engaging in commerce. Since its introduction by the Bush Administration in 2005, the PLCAA has been inconsistently interpreted by U.S. judges, with opponents of the bill arguing that past court cases have chosen to uphold the PLCAA as a broad defense mechanism for arms companies, therefore severely limiting how petitioners can successfully argue in a legal proceeding that the companies are liable for gross negligence. In the context of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the case was originally heard by a federal judge who determined that Smith & Wesson Inc., alongside the other gun companies named in the lawsuit, were protected by the PLCAA from prosecution.

Following the ruling, the Mexican government subsequently filed for an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in early 2024, which determined that the lawsuit fell within the PLCAA’s “predicate exception”, a clause that outlines exemptions where legal action can be taken against arms companies.  As the court would find, arms companies knew that they were indirectly engaging in commerce with international crime rings in Mexico; these actions constituted “bad faith”—otherwise known as dishonesty—and a degree of aiding and abetting in criminal activity that was not permissible under the PLCAA. In addition, according to an opinion provided by Circuit Judge Gelpí Kayatta after the appeal hearing, the judge found insufficient reasoning to bar Mexico from pursuing legal action against the defendants, who attempted to argue that the correlation between their commerce and Mexico’s claims of proximate damage as lacking legal standing. Judge Kayatta concludes her statement by assessing the validity of the Mexican government’s complaints that a large increase in illegal gun trafficking into the country will undoubtedly lead to an increase in federal spending independent of the fees incurred by the direct victims of gun violence; according to the judge, such costs would include hiring additional security and military personnel, funneling more funds towards healthcare systems to cover medical expenses, and increasing spending within the Mexican judicial system.

Furthermore, Judge Kayatta found that the petitioner’s argument of proximate cause—defined in legal terms as an occurrence with such a sufficient degree of correlation to an injury as to constitute liability—is consistent with Supreme Court legal precedent on organized crime and racketeering, further establishing Mexico’s legal standing in pursuing monetary compensation from the gun manufacturers included in the lawsuit. It is because of this precedent that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the U.S. gun manufacturing companies. The Court concluded its opinion by stating that there is sufficient evidence to suggest the presence of alleged proximate cause, thus nullifying any protection afforded by the PLCAA and allowing the Mexican government to have their lawsuit reconsidered by the lower courts. Despite the initial lawsuit alleging that eight manufacturers were responsible for a violation of the PLCAA, a lower court judge found insufficient evidence for a case against six of the eight companies, leaving Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. and Whitmer Public Safety Group Inc. as the only two remaining defendants of the original lawsuit. Subsequently, both groups filed a writ of certiorari—a petition that involves a higher court reviewing a lower court’s ruling—with the Supreme Court with the intent of dismissing the Mexican government’s lawsuit.

The pending Supreme Court hearing will bring with it implications about the future of the gun manufacturing industry and its afforded protections from lawsuits. While the 2005 PLCAA does shield U.S. gun companies from a slew of legal challenges, there are clearly defined exceptions that the Mexican government has proposed. These exceptions particularly concern the companies’ deliberate engagement in commerce with known arms trafficking rings across international borders, which exacerbate the financial burdens on the Mexican federal government by causing increased gun violence in Mexico. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. will undoubtedly serve to strengthen the relatively unchecked power of these gun companies, even in situations where there is proximate cause is clearly established. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court should rule in favor of the Mexican government in order to mitigate the ability of gun companies to engage in bad-faith commerce with recognized international crime rings.

Edited by Jacqueline Elise De Cuvilly Hutchins