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
North Carolina: Update on Permitless Carry

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

North Carolina: Update on Permitless Carry

Last week the North Carolina General Assembly briefly returned from recess and re-referred Senate Bill 50, Freedom to Carry NC, to the House Rules Committee.

Federal Court Strikes Down Biden Administration’s “Engaged in the Business” Rule in NRA Case

Thursday, October 2, 2025

Federal Court Strikes Down Biden Administration’s “Engaged in the Business” Rule in NRA Case

Yesterday, in Butler v. Bondi, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority by issuing its 2024 Final Rule expanding ...

Canada’s Public Safety Minister on Gun Ban & Confiscation: “Don’t Ask Me to Explain the Logic”

News  

Monday, September 29, 2025

Canada’s Public Safety Minister on Gun Ban & Confiscation: “Don’t Ask Me to Explain the Logic”

There have been multiple developments on the Canadian gun grab and ban in the last few days, but the most astounding has got to be a leaked bombshell recording of the Liberal Public Safety Minister, ...

Canada’s Gun Grab: Amnesty Expiration Approaches as Top Officials Sow Confusion

News  

Monday, September 22, 2025

Canada’s Gun Grab: Amnesty Expiration Approaches as Top Officials Sow Confusion

Canada’s Liberal government has consistently and misleadingly used “buyback” to describe the 2020 mandatory “assault weapon” confiscation law, in an attempt to make the scheme appear less hostile to property rights and Canada’s responsible gun ...

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Hawaii’s Private Property Default Carry Ban

Friday, October 3, 2025

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Hawaii’s Private Property Default Carry Ban

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s law forbidding carry on private property open to the public (such as restaurants, gas stations, and grocery stores) ...

Gun Controllers Rage at Everytown Over “Firearms Training,” Demand “Abstinence”

News  

Monday, September 29, 2025

Gun Controllers Rage at Everytown Over “Firearms Training,” Demand “Abstinence”

A revealing article in USA Today last week reported that Everytown for Gun Safety’s new “firearms training” program, Train SMART, “met stiff opposition from [Everytown’s] own members and longtime supporters.” 

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Fifth Circuit Case Challenging the Federal Switchblade Act

Friday, October 3, 2025

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Fifth Circuit Case Challenging the Federal Switchblade Act

Yesterday, the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief in Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bondi, urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas’s decision upholding the Federal ...

Open Carry Comes to Florida

News  

Monday, September 22, 2025

Open Carry Comes to Florida

On September 10, the First District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida struck down the Sunshine State’s prohibition on open carry as a violation of the Second Amendment in the case McDaniel v. Florida. ...

California Loves Gun Control, Loathes Crime Control

News  

Monday, September 29, 2025

California Loves Gun Control, Loathes Crime Control

California is always adding to its mountain of gun control laws aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens.

Pennsylvania: Another Gun Bill Fails on House Floor

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Pennsylvania: Another Gun Bill Fails on House Floor

On Tuesday, another anti-gun bill was defeated on the House floor, failing to receive approval by a 101-102 vote.    

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.