June 3rd 2025 | Clare Levine
Edited by Ayden Min & Daniel Jung
The question of whether United States gun manufacturers can be held liable for violence in Mexico due to domestic production and sale of firearms that are later illegally trafficked to Mexican drug cartels is being contested in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v Estados Unidos Mexicanos [1]. The Mexican government is arguing that certain American gun manufacturers are responsible for proximate causation and aiding and abetting regarding gun sales in the United States that later end up in the hands of Mexican cartels. Proximate causation is “an actual cause that is also legally sufficient to support liability,” or the direct cause of an injury or event that leads to harm by the defendant to the plaintiff [2]. Aiding and abetting is assisting someone else in committing a crime, even if one does not execute the crime oneself. Another aspect of this case regards the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which the defendants argued protected them from the accusations in this case. The PLCAA prohibits certain lawsuits against United States gun manufacturers. As of April 2025, this case is currently being decided by the United States Supreme Court, and thus, this paper will analyze the factors at play and past precedents to opine on what the possible outcomes of the case could be and why.
The legal issue involved in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos is the gun manufacturer’s alleged involvement in illegal gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels, causing harm to Mexican citizens and Mexico overall [3]. Cases such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al., District of Columbia v. Heller, and Bondi v. VanDerStok all serve as precedent in considering how this case will be decided [4] [5] [6]. It is, however, pertinent to consider the PLCAA in this case as well. The defendants argued that they were protected by the PLCAA’s prevention of certain lawsuits against gun manufacturers, a claim affirmed by the district court, which led to the dismissal of the case. This decision was then reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which stated that the lawsuit falls within the PLCAA’s “predicate exception” clause. This clause allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers if they: a) knowingly violated laws related to the sale or marketing of firearms, or b) aided in the sale of firearms to prohibited individuals. While the PLCAA’s protection of United States gun manufacturers extends to foreign countries that are confronted with harm, the plaintiffs argued that the gun companies aided and abetted illegal gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels; this is a violation of United States laws and caused harm to the country of Mexico.
Mexico alleges that certain United States gun manufacturers are responsible for proximate causation and aiding and abetting, and claims that the defendants “deliberately facilitate gun trafficking into Mexico” [7]. The liability or injury being argued by the plaintiffs in this case is “negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence,” and a whole host of other claims regarding the manufacturing groups’ involvement in gun-related violence or illegal activity such as trafficking in Mexico [8]. Data shows that in the last two decades, Mexico has seen a high increase in gun violence as a direct result of increasing amounts of firearms being trafficked into the country [9]. Despite large amounts of guns arriving in Mexico, the country “has only one gun store” that is run by the Army [10]. Because of the limited access and tight restrictions regarding background checks, very few firearms are distributed, leading to an increase in illegal firearms possession and the need for gun trafficking by cartels. The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence in this argument to reverse the District Court’s dismissal of this case, stating that the alleged facts support the theory that “defendants have aided and abetted such unlawful sales” [11]. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found that the gun manufacturers were in “knowing violation of relevant state and federal laws,” thus enabling the “predicate exception” clause of the PLCAA and allowing this lawsuit to proceed [12].
The precedent for this case’s outcome comes from years of Supreme Court decisions on gun-related cases. With a more conservative court today, many recent and prominent rulings have been decided in favor of gun rights rather than gun control. One of the most notable gun rights cases is District of Columbia v. Heller, which declared the constitutional individual right to bear arms [13]. Another significant recent Supreme Court gun case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al., in which the Supreme Court struck down New York State’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry licenses in the state, declaring it a violation of the Second Amendment [14]. This case is relevant as it heavily altered and changed gun control laws in New York and also exemplifies the right-leaning majority of the Court. These two court cases set precedents that suggest a potential favorable ruling for U.S. gun manufacturers. With important court decisions ruling in favor of gun rights rather than gun protection, there is evidence that the Court will rule in favor of the defendant. Furthermore, the dismissal by the District Court due to the PLCAA protection is also evidence that the Court could look to in this situation. A key deciding factor in this case will be the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the PLCAA’s pertinence in this case. However, as stated above, the Court of Appeals reversed the First Circuit’s decision, stating that “predicate exception” is at play in this case and thus United States gun manufacturers are not prohibited from being sued. The Supreme Court could also consider this lower court decision as evidence when ruling on the case.
A potential counterargument to the idea that the Court will rule in favor of the gun manufacturers due to its perceived political leanings comes from yet another Supreme Court case, Bondi v. VanDerStok, which was decided on this year’s docket and upheld a rule from President Biden’s term regulating “ghost guns” [15]. Ghost guns are untraceable weapons that can be 3-D printed or ordered online. An overwhelming majority of 7-2 indicates that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun regulation rather than gun rights is quite possible, despite the current political leanings of the court. Therefore, it is not improbable for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Mexico in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v Estados Unidos Mexicanos [16].
Although the outcome of this case has not been determined yet, the result will be of great significance. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, United States gun manufacturers will be subject to greater scrutiny and restrictions regarding their sale of guns, especially those that are closer to the United States-Mexico border. Yet, I believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the defendants, finding that the PLCAA holds in this case and deciding that the “predicate exception” rule does not apply. The lower court precedent for this case indicates a ruling that could go either way, but considering major cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al, as well as the political divide of the court, I believe that United States gun manufacturers will not be found liable for gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels and therefore not found responsible for the harm and injury that resulted from such trafficking [17][18]. Either way, the outcome of this case is of great seriousness. Gun manufacturers in the United States will either be able to continue their sales as they have been, or they will be found liable for aiding and abetting foreign drug cartels in the violence they have caused, and be required to change their sales plans and be subject to more scrutiny.
Sources:
[1] Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v Estados Unidos Mexicanos, U.S. 23-1141 (filed August 4, 2021)
[2]”Proximate Cause.” Legal Information Institute, accessed April 6, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/proximate_cause.
[3] Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v Estados Unidos Mexicanos, U.S. 23-1141 (filed August 4, 2021)
[4] New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al. 597 U.S. 1. 2022
[5] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570. 2008
[6] Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604. U.S. ___. 2025
[7] ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS v. SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC, No. No. 22-1823, slip op. at 6 (1st Cir. Mar. 4, 2025). https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/22-1823P-01A.pdf.
[8] Celis, M. “US District Court dismisses the case filed by Mexico against the US weapons industry regarding non-contractual obligations.” Conflict of Laws, accessed April 6, 2025. https://conflictoflaws.net/2022/us-district-court-dismisses-the-case-filed-by-mexico-against-the-us-weapons-industry-regarding-non-contractual-obligations/.
[9] Mullenix, L. S. “Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.” American Bar Association, accessed April 14, 2025. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/smith-wesson-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos/.
[10] Mullenix, L. S. “Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos,” American Bar Association, accessed April 14, 2025. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/smith-wesson-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos/.
[11] ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS v. SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC, No. No. 22-1823, slip op. at 38 (1st Cir. Mar. 4, 2025). https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/22-1823P-01A.pdf.
[12] ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS v. SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC, No. No. 22-1823, slip op. at 38 (1st Cir. Mar. 4, 2025). https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/22-1823P-01A.pdf.
[13] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570. 2008
[14] New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al. 597 U.S. 1. 2022
[15] Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604. U.S. ___. 2025
[16] Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v Estados Unidos Mexicanos, U.S. 23-1141 (filed August 4, 2021)
[17] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570. 2008
[18] New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al. 597 U.S. 1. 2022
JHULR 
Leave a comment