The United States Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government accusing American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, Glock Inc., and Colt’s Manufacturing LLC of enabling illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organizations in Mexico. The lawsuit, initially filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, alleged that these manufacturers failed to prevent guns from being trafficked illegally into Mexico, which contributed to widespread violence and high homicide rates in the country.

Mexico argued that the massive influx of firearms smuggled into its territory led to devastating social consequences, citing a high rate of intentional killings. The United Nations estimated in 2023 that nearly 25 homicides occur per 100,000 people in Mexico. Much of this violence has been linked to powerful drug cartels and criminal enterprises operating within the country. A Brazil-based think tank, the Igarape Institute, estimated that Mexico’s crime cost nearly 1.92% of its GDP between 2010 and 2014. The U.S., as the world’s largest arms manufacturer and the primary source of illegally trafficked firearms into Mexico and Latin America, has come under pressure to act.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products, as the companies cannot be held responsible for the illegal actions of third parties. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the nine-member bench, emphasized that even if manufacturers are “indifferent” to illegal trafficking, this does not equate to willfully assisting criminal enterprises. She noted that Mexico failed to prove that the manufacturers directly participated in or aided unlawful sales to Mexican traffickers.

The court also dismissed Mexico’s argument that gun manufacturers designed and marketed “military-style” assault weapons specifically for cartels. Justice Kagan highlighted that such firearms are legally purchased by ordinary consumers, and manufacturers cannot be blamed simply because cartels also prefer these weapons. Additionally, firearms with Spanish-language branding or references to Mexican history, while attractive to cartels, also appeal to millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.

The lawsuit targeted some of the biggest names in the American firearms industry, but the companies denied responsibility for the actions of criminals abroad. The Supreme Court’s rejection of the lawsuit was hailed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), an industry trade group, as a major victory against an unfair claim. NSSF Senior Vice President Lawrence G. Keane criticized attempts by gun control activists to hold manufacturers liable for criminal violence, asserting that the issue lies with responsible firearm ownership rather than with the manufacturers themselves.

Keane also expressed sympathy for Mexican citizens suffering from violence perpetrated by drug cartels but stressed that blaming gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals ignores the complexity of the issue. The decision reinforces the legal protections afforded to firearm manufacturers in the United States and sets a precedent limiting the scope of liability in cases related to gun trafficking and crime.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling protects American gun makers from legal claims tied to cartel violence in Mexico, highlighting the legal distinction between lawful commerce and criminal misuse, and emphasizing the importance of responsible gun ownership over manufacturer liability for crimes committed by third parties.