Supreme Court poised to deny Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun makers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to rule against the Mexican government over a lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun makers accountable for an epidemic of violence that officials in Mexico say can be traced to their products.

During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices seemed skeptical of the arguments made by Mexico that its claims could move forward despite a federal law intended to shield gun companies from liability.

The case reached the court amid increased tensions between American and Mexican leaders following the election of President Donald Trump, who has sought to stem the flow of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, citing drug trafficking and gang violence.

Trump has announced new tariffs against Mexico that went into effect Tuesday, and his administration has designated Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum recently responded by saying her country would crack down on gun smuggling from the United States.

Democrats in Washington have introduced legislation intended to reduce the flow of guns across the border, which they estimate to total at least 200,000 a year.

In the 2021 lawsuit, the Mexican government accused Smith & Wesson, Colt and other companies of deliberately selling guns to dealers who sell products that are often later recovered at crime scenes in Mexico.

Seeking up to $10 billion in damages, the Mexican government accuses the companies of "aiding and abetting" violations of U.S. law, which means they are not protected by the federal immunity shield, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA).

But justices appeared skeptical on Tuesday that Mexico has adequately alleged that the gun companies should be held liable for specific dealers that sell firearms in bulk to "straw purchasers" whose intent is to traffic the guns across the border.

"What you don't have is particular dealers, right?" liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Mexico's lawyer, Cate Stetson, in relation to the specific allegations in the lawsuit. "Who are they aiding and abetting in this complaint?" she added.

Another liberal justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to see the lawsuit as being exactly the type of complaint Congress sought to provide immunity for.

"I guess I'm wondering whether the PLCCA statute itself is telling us that we don't want the courts to be the ones to be crafting remedies that amount to regulation on this industry," she said.

Justices appeared equally unconvinced by allegations in the lawsuit that the companies design certain weapons that might appeal to cartel members, including a Colt handgun known as the Super El Jefe.

"Those are all things that are not illegal in anyway," conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said of how firearms are designed. "There are some people who want the experience of shooting a particular type of gun because they find it more enjoyable than using a BB gun," he added.

More broadly, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he had "real concerns" that allowing aiding and abetting claims to go forward against U.S. companies for illegal actions taken by third parties could have knock-on effects in cases involving other products, such as car and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

The case at the Supreme Court involves two companies — Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms — with other manufacturers, including Glock and Colt, successfully having had claims against them tossed out.

In court papers, lawyers for the gunmakers say the federal immunity law protects them from any liability that results from "criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm by a third party.

Mexico's legal team is focusing on a narrow exception to the liability shield, which allows a lawsuit to go forward if a company has "knowingly violated" a gun law and if that violation was a cause of the harm alleged in a lawsuit.

Mexico's lawsuit cannot meet those requirements, the companies say, as its arguments for liability rely on linking a long chain of independent third parties, including the gun dealers and traffickers, to the defendants.

A federal judge had ruled for the manufacturers, but the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case last year, saying the liability shield did not extend to Mexico’s specific claims.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com