Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Mexico, U.S. Gun Control Activists Lose Big at Supreme Court

Monday, June 9, 2025

Mexico, U.S. Gun Control Activists Lose Big at Supreme Court

For the second year in a row, gun control advocates have lost a unanimous decision at the U.S. Supreme Court. This time the issue was whether Mexico, aided by anti-gun activists stateside, could sue American gun manufacturers for the violence Mexican drug cartels have committed with illegally obtained firearms. The Court shot down Mexico’s complaint in a rare 9-0 ruling, written by Barack Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan. The opinion reinforced the continued vitality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a statute Congress passed to block suits like this that seek to use the courts to impose gun control rejected by elected legislatures.

The case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, was decided June 5.

We have been reporting on Mexico’s lawsuit since its inception. The NRA has also participated in the case by filing friend of the court briefs at critical points in its progression. Essentially, Mexico accused various U.S. firearm makers of “aiding and abetting” cartel violence in Mexico through their business practices. These included, so the plaintiff claimed, selling guns to dealers who they know illegally supply traffickers; failing to impose extra legal safeguards in conducting business; and designing and marketing guns that, while perfectly legal in the U.S., happen to appeal to cartel members.

The question before the Court was whether these allegations established a plausible claim that the manufacturers “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought[.]” Such violations are an exception to the PLCAA’s general rule that firearms manufacturers and sellers are not liable for harms arising from third party crimes committed with their products.

The justices found that Mexico had not articulated any valid claims of a knowing violation of law on the gunmakers’ part.

Justice Kagan’s opinion succinctly disposed of each of Mexico’s theories. While the Court recognized that plaintiffs theoretically could use the federal aiding and abetting statute to get around the PLCAA, it held Mexico’s broadly conceived claims were too vague and insubstantial to allege the defendants knowingly participated in violations of gun laws. In other words, according to the Court, “Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers participate in those [illegal] sales as in something that they wish to bring about and seek by their action to make succeed” (internal punctuation and formatting omitted).

First, the Court held that mere knowledge that legal gun sales sometimes contribute to downstream illegal activity does not, without more, establish culpability. Indifference, wrote the Court, is not the same thing as assistance. The plaintiffs, moreover, did not cite any specific transactions they claimed violated the law, nor did they account for the fact that manufacturers were supplying guns to distributors, not directly to dealers. “Mexico’s allegations on this score,” the Court wrote, are “all speculation.”

The Court also rebuffed the claim that the manufacturers had a duty to regulate dealers of their products beyond the requirements of the law. “Such omissions and inactions, especially in an already highly regulated industry, are rarely the stuff of aiding-and-abetting liability,” the Court observed (internal quotations and formatting omitted). “A manufacturer of goods is not an accomplice to every unaffiliated retailer whom it fails to make follow the law.”

Finally, the justices dismissed Mexico’s claims that making and advertising high performance firearms like the AR-15 and pistols with names and graphics alluding to Mexican folk heroes somehow count as aiding and abetting criminal activity. As the Court correctly noted, “those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” Indeed, the justices recognized, “[t]he AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country.”  Echoing language NRA-ILA itself used in writing about the case, the Court held: “The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too.” Meanwhile, the pistols mentioned by the plaintiff are also likely appealing to “millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.” Brushing off a claim that manufacturers “have not attempted to make guns with non-defaceable serial numbers,” the Court held, “the failure to improve gun design in that way (which federal law does not require) cannot in the end show that the manufacturers have joined both mind and hand with lawbreakers in the way needed to aid and abet.”

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion pointing out the need for the Court to consider, in an appropriate case, what counts as a “violation” that could establish an exception to the PLCAA. He noted that Mexico had not identified any collateral criminal convictions supporting the alleged violations and that their attempt to establish these supposed crimes under the lower standard of a civil case raised due process concerns.

Justice Jackson also filed a concurrence, underscoring how Mexico’s theory of the case struck at the heart of what Congress was trying to prevent with the PLCAA. She noted, “Activists had deployed litigation in an effort to compel firearms manufacturers and associated entities to adopt safety measures and practices that exceeded what state or federal statutes required.” And the “PLCAA embodies Congress’s express rejection of such efforts—stymying those who, as Congress put it, sought ‘to accomplish through litigation that which they have been unable to achieve by legislation.’” Mexico’s essential failure, she emphasized, was to fault “the industry writ large for engaging in practices that legislatures and voters have declined to prohibit.”

The Supreme Court’s decision comes at a crucial time, as gun control activists backed by billionaire donors have revived lawfare against the firearms industry, and anti-gun states – encouraged by the former Biden-Harris administration – sought to create statutory loopholes to the PLCAA’s coverage to facilitate these suits. Those dubious efforts now have even bigger obstacles to overcome, thanks to the Court’s unified affirmation of the federal protections.

As the Court summarized:

Mexico’s suit closely resembles the ones Congress had in mind: It seeks to recover from American firearms manufacturers for the downstream damage Mexican cartel members wreak with their guns. Of course, the law Congress wrote includes the predicate exception, which allows some suits falling within PLCAA’s general ban to proceed. But that exception, if Mexico’s suit fell within it, would swallow most of the rule. We doubt Congress intended to draft such a capacious way out of PLCAA, and in fact it did not.

Two unanimous Supreme Court losses in consecutive years should provide a clue to the firearm prohibition lobby (and their funders) that they’re losing the plot. For now, at least, it’s adios to Mexico and to the hope of the American gun lobby to gut the PLCAA.

TRENDING NOW
U.S. Senate Forced to Remove Pro-Gun Language from Reconciliation Bill

News  

Friday, June 27, 2025

U.S. Senate Forced to Remove Pro-Gun Language from Reconciliation Bill

Today, the U.S. Senate was forced to remove the pro-gun language that had been previously included in the Reconciliation Bill currently making its way through the chamber. We explained in a previous article that this language would, ...

U.S. Senate Adds Pro-Gun Tax Relief Language Back into Reconciliation Bill

News  

Saturday, June 28, 2025

U.S. Senate Adds Pro-Gun Tax Relief Language Back into Reconciliation Bill

Overnight, the U.S. Senate added pro-gun tax relief language back into the Reconciliation bill after the Senate Parliamentarian struck out an earlier provision.  While this new provision is not as expansive as the language we advocated for which ...

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

News  

Second Amendment  

Thursday, May 22, 2025

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1 the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, completely removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA).

U.S. Court of Appeals Backtracks on Adverse Suppressor Ruling

News  

Monday, June 23, 2025

U.S. Court of Appeals Backtracks on Adverse Suppressor Ruling

In a single sentence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit added to the high-profile and consequential national conversation on firearm suppressors.

North Carolina: Update on Gun Bills Moving through the General Assembly

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

North Carolina: Update on Gun Bills Moving through the General Assembly

Recently, House Bill 193 (H193) was reported favorably out of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Rules Committee, with amendments.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down CA’s One-Gun-A-Month Law

Friday, June 20, 2025

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down CA’s One-Gun-A-Month Law

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that California’s law prohibiting people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period violates the Second Amendment.

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, June 27, 2025

Joint Statement from Pro-Gun Groups on the Senate Reconciliation Bill

On behalf of millions of NRA members and gun owners, we stand united in calling on Congress to uphold Americans' Second Amendment rights and zero out the NFA's excise tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

Minnesota: Shotgun-Only Hunting Zones Repealed

Friday, June 20, 2025

Minnesota: Shotgun-Only Hunting Zones Repealed

On Monday, June 9th, outside of regular session, the Senate passed the Environment Omnibus bill, removing shotgun-only hunting zones in the state. 

Senate Finance Committee Releases Text of Reconciliation Bill

News  

Monday, June 16, 2025

Senate Finance Committee Releases Text of Reconciliation Bill

Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance released its portion of the Senate version of the Reconciliation Bill. Late last month, the U.S. House passed a version of the Reconciliation Bill which included Section 2 of the ...

California: Anti-Gun Bills Scheduled for Hearings Next Week

Thursday, June 26, 2025

California: Anti-Gun Bills Scheduled for Hearings Next Week

On Tuesday, July 1st, the Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committees will hold hearings on several anti-gun bills aimed at further restricting the rights of law-abiding Californians. Please use the Take Action button below to contact ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.