SCOTUS agrees to listen to Smith & Wesson in fight with Mexico

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has granted Smith & Wesson's request to decide whether Mexico's lawsuit against the weapons manufacturer should be dismissed.

On Friday, SCOTUS granted the certificate Smith & Wesson vs. Mexico. At the heart of the case is the foreign government's claim that the American firearms industry, and Smith & Wesson in particular, is responsible for cartel violence south of the border. The court will determine whether this claim is viable under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The case's central questions do not directly address the Second Amendment, but rather focus on the question of whether the gun industry's actions can be legally linked to harm caused by criminal cartels in another country. However, Smith & Wesson argued in its petition to the court that the lawsuit has a direct impact on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms because Mexico's goal is to effectively ban the sale of certain popular firearms in the United States.

“Simply put: Mexico abhors the American system that makes firearms readily available to law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment,” the company said in its filing. “She makes no secret of her belief that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to purchase an AR-15 or a firearm that can hold more than ten rounds. And it's disgusting how law-abiding Americans have the freedom to obtain such firearms without having to beg for government mercy. ”

The outcome of the case could have significant implications for lawsuits aimed at holding gun manufacturers accountable for criminal actions by third parties who use their products. Lawsuits of this kind have resurfaced since the families of Sandy Hook victims successfully settled a case against the now-defunct Remington Arms after SCOTUS refused to act on a similar request from that company to intervene. If SCOTUS allows Mexico's As the lawsuit moves forward, it will likely motivate many more plaintiffs to file lawsuits against the gun industry. If not, it could have exactly the opposite effect.

Smith & Wesson appealed to the Supreme Court after a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals green-lighted the $10 billion civil liability lawsuit. That court reversed a district judge's decision that the PLCAA foreclosed on Mexico's claims. Instead, the panel concluded that Mexico's lawsuit fit within one of the exemptions that Congress had included in the PLCAA's liability protections.

“We agree that the PLCAA's limitations on the types of actions that may be maintained in the United States apply to actions brought by foreign governments for injuries suffered outside the United States,” wrote Judge William J. Kayatta. “However, we also believe that Mexico’s complaint plausibly asserts a type of claim that is legally exempt from the PLCAA’s general prohibition.”

Judge Kayatta, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled that Mexico's claim that American gun manufacturers were “supporting” illegal arms sales was lawful.

“The complaint, read lawfully, alleges that the defendants are aware of the Mexican drug cartels' significant demand for their weapons, that they can identify which of their dealers are responsible for the illegal sales that give the cartels the weapons, and that they “We know that these dealers are using illegal sales practices to get the weapons to the cartels,” he wrote. “It is therefore not implausible that, as alleged in the Complaint, Defendants engage in all of these conducts in order to maintain the unlawful market in Mexico, not just in spite of it.”

Smith & Wesson told SCOTUS that the First Circuit's ruling “outrageously” disregards established precedent and “risks serious consequences.”

“Without this court’s intervention, Mexico’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit will hang over the American firearms industry for years, leading to costly and intrusive discoveries by a foreign state seeking to pressure the industry to adopt a range of gun controls.” Measures taken by have been repeatedly rejected by American voters,” the company wrote. “Worse still, as long as the decision below remains legal, numerous similar lawsuits will follow from other governments at home and abroad – all seeking to distract from their own policy failings by shifting blame for criminal violence onto the American firearms industry .”

The gun manufacturer argued that it was crucial for the court to intervene at this point because a dispute on the merits, even if ultimately successful, could have repercussions.

“Even if ultimately unsuccessful, the costs of this litigation will be devastating – not only for the defendants, but more importantly for the millions of law-abiding Americans who rely on the firearms industry to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Smith & Wesson. “This type of litigation is exactly what Congress is trying to prevent with the PLCAA.”

The Supreme Court has already scheduled oral arguments in another gun case. Vanderstok vs. Garlandfor next Tuesday. While earlier this year it sidestepped and accepted several Second Amendment cases Smith & Wesson vs. Mexico means that the court will again issue at least two opinions in gun cases in its next term.