In 2021, the country of Mexico filed suit against a collection of United States gun manufacturers, and the case is now before the Supreme Court, where the Justices will decide if the case will move forward to a trial. The lawsuit claims that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), does not protect US gun companies because they sell their guns to “red flag” dealers in Mexico, who are known for trafficking guns across the border. Mexico is seeking $10 billion in damages and injunctive relief.

Although a federal trial judge had dismissed the case based on PLCAA’s immunity to gun manufacturers when people use their guns to commit crimes, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston reversed course and allowed Mexico to pursue its legal theory. The case, Smith & Wesson Brands Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, is now in the Supreme Court, where the justices will consider whether or not the Mexican government fits within any exception of the PLCAA. The PLCAA was enacted in 2005 and offers broad immunity from civil lawsuits that charge ammunition and firearms manufacturers, dealers, importers, and distributors when these sales result in criminal or illegal use of their weapons.

The PLCAA basically gives the gun industry immunity from lawsuits that concern a purchaser’s misuse of weapons. However, the PLCAA does prohibit US gun companies from violating state or federal laws in regard to both the sale and marketing of weapons.

Though the news is often rife with articles about gun violence in Mexico, the place where criminals and drug cartels purchase their guns is surprising.

Mexico has a total of two legal gun stores in the country, and the government imposes stringent regulations on all gun purchases, yet the police have found thousands of firearms in Mexico over the years. Over 180,000 Mexicans are killed every year due to being shot by guns.

The ATF reports that about 70 percent of Mexico’s weapons come from the U.S.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the justices are focusing on claims from Mexico that US gun manufacturers and distributors are directing marketing in their country to powerful cartels. The questions presented to the High Court in the petitioners’ writ of certiorari are:

“1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.

2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.”

Last week, the Justices listened to oral arguments about the Mexico lawsuit. Based on the questioning by the justices during oral argument, it appears that a majority of the Court has doubts that there is significant and specific evidence to bring the case forward to trial. In the High Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Mexico lawsuit does not claim that gun companies violate any U.S. laws.

Justice Jackson said that the suit allegations “just go to whether or not the defendant had knowledge that at the end of the day, … some dealers might be doing something wrong.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed overall with Justice Jackson and said that the suit did not prove the US gun manufacturers “intended” to violate the law.

Justice Elena Kagan took the issue further, asking, “Are they aiding and abetting in this complaint?”

In the case, Mexico argues a provision in US law holds that American businesses that knowingly violate state or federal law with their sales or marketing of firearms are liable for harm that results, providing the basis for a civil lawsuit. Mexico claims that the harm done by the marketing of US gun makers makes them liable.

A ruling in the High Court would not determine whether the gun makers named in the suit , including Smith & Wesson, Colt, Beretta, Glock and others are liable, but merely whether or not the lawsuit may move forward or should be dismissed. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected this summer.