Supreme Court Unanimously Defends Gun Manufacturers Against Foreign Overreach

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously dismissed a sweeping lawsuit filed by the Mexican government against several U.S.-based gun manufacturers.

The court’s decision sharply undercut efforts by foreign governments and liberal gun control activists to hold American companies liable for the misuse of firearms abroad.

The justices ruled 9-0 that Mexico’s claims lacked the legal foundation to proceed, dealing a blow to an effort to scapegoat the American firearms industry for the violence wrought by Mexican drug cartels.

Mexico argued that U.S. gun makers knowingly turned a blind eye to illegal weapons trafficking by supplying firearms to so-called “rogue dealers” who failed to properly vet customers.

According to Mexico, these guns then ended up in the hands of violent criminal organizations south of the border. But the high court wasn’t buying it.

Justice Kagan: Indifference is Not Complicity

Writing for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan—an Obama appointee—rejected Mexico’s theory of liability, stating:

“It is far from clear that such behavior, without more, could ever count as aiding and abetting under our precedents. Mexico’s plausible allegations are of ‘indifference,’ rather than assistance. … A manufacturer of goods is not an accomplice to every unaffiliated retailer whom it fails to make follow the law.”

Kagan also dismissed Mexico’s complaints about the aesthetics of some firearms featuring Spanish-language markings, noting that such designs are legal and appeal to a wide variety of American consumers.

“Assault-style rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers,” she wrote, rejecting the argument that such weapons were deliberately designed to appeal to criminals.

The Court’s decision leaned on the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a key piece of legislation championed by conservatives to protect gun makers from politically motivated lawsuits. A federal judge in Boston had initially tossed Mexico’s lawsuit under that law, but a liberal-leaning appeals court reinstated it. The Supreme Court’s decision now restores common sense and the original intent of the law.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, pointing out another flaw in Mexico’s argument:

The 2005 law “could be read to require such cases be linked to a specific crime someone was convicted of, rather than a pattern of alleged violations.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also concurred with the outcome, as she noted that the lawsuit lacked specific accusations of criminal behavior by the gun manufacturers.

Her opinion hinted at the possibility of future litigation targeting wholesalers with closer ties to retail dealers—another attempt that conservatives are likely to watch closely.