An attorney for the Mexican government urged the court to consider that the lawsuit is still at an early stage, saying that her clients should get the chance to prove their claims in court.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised to dismiss the Mexican government’s lawsuit against American firearm manufacturers and retailers.
According to National Public Radio, the Mexican government is suing Smith & Wesson, Colt, and other gunmakers. In total, Mexico is seeking at least $10 billion in damages, alleging that the defendants turned a blind eye to suspicious purchases and transnational smuggling.
Noel Francisco, an attorney representing the firearms industry, told the Supreme Court that the Mexican government’s claim—while unique—is inherently flawed.
“No case in American history supports that theory,” Francisco said. “If Mexico is right […] then Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers, since it knows that teenagers will buy, drive drunk, and crash.”
Justice Elena Kagan raised the possibility that some gunmakers intentionally design products that appeal to Mexican drug cartels. Kagan cited the example of weapons that have serial numbers that can be easily erased.
“Those allegations are in this complaint,” Kagan said, adding that “manufacturers have basically designed and manufactured a set of weapons with a set of characteristics that are peculiarly useful for criminal activity.”
An attorney for the Mexican government urged the court to consider that the lawsuit is still at an early stage, saying that her clients should get the chance to prove their claims in court.
In response, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether gunmakers knowingly sell to firearm dealers who transact with Mexican drug cartels and other criminal organizations.
“Yes,” said attorney Cate Stetson. “[Defendants] supply dealers with all the guns they can pay for, without any public safety conditions, even if a dealer has been repeatedly found to have violated gun laws, been indicted […] or has repeatedly supplied cartels in suspicious and obvious sales […] including bulk sales.”
However, Francisco continuously emphasized that federal legislation, like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, insulates the firearms industry from the consequences of consumer crime and misconduct.
“Congress’ entire purpose was to prohibit lawsuits just like this one,” Francisco said. “It was trying to prohibit lawsuits that had been brought by the city of Chicago, the city of Cincinnati, the city of Boston, on theories and seeking relief, exactly like this one.”
Francisco also told the court that Mexico’s claims could impact Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
“It’s not just about protecting the manufacturers, the distributors, and the retailers, but it’s protecting the right of every American to exercise their right under the Second Amendment to possess and bear firearms,” Francisco said. “That right is meaningless if there are no manufacturers, retailers, and distributors that provide them in the first place.”
Liberal and conservative justices indicated that they were skeptical of the lawsuit’s viability.
Sources
At the Supreme Court, justices are skeptical of Mexico’s arguments against gunmakers
Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Mexico’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Makers
Join the conversation!