SCOTUS isn’t going to let this slide. They’re putting this country on blast.
And the Supreme Court goes scorched earth on this foreign nation for trying to harm the U.S.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court took center stage in a heated legal clash, as justices questioned whether Mexico can move forward with its audacious $10 billion lawsuit against American gun manufacturers. Filed in 2021, Mexico’s case accuses companies like Smith & Wesson Brands of fueling the bloodshed south of the border by knowingly supplying firearms to drug cartels through shady intermediaries.
The lawsuit alleges that these U.S. gunmakers bear responsibility for the illegal flow of weapons into Mexico, arming cartels and unleashing chaos. Mexico claims the companies peddle their wares to so-called “straw purchasers”—middlemen who funnel guns to criminals.
“No case in history supports that theory,” Noel Francisco, the attorney defending Smith & Wesson Brands, told the justices during oral arguments. He painted Mexico’s argument as far-fetched, quipping, “Indeed, if Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers.”
The courtroom drama unfolds against a tense backdrop, with U.S.-Mexico relations already strained by President Trump’s newly enacted 25% tariff on Mexican goods, a move aimed at pressuring Mexico to curb fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.
At its core, the Supreme Court isn’t tasked with deciding whether gun manufacturers are liable for Mexico’s woes. Instead, the justices are weighing a narrower issue: whether a lower court was right to let the case, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, proceed. A ruling is expected by June.
The debate hinges on the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a law shielding gunmakers from liability in most cases. Mexico’s legal team pointed to an exception, arguing that lawsuits can advance if a company “knowingly violated” the law. They accused American manufacturers of enticing Mexican buyers with gimmicks—like pistols emblazoned with revolutionary hero Emiliano Zapata—while funneling weapons through shady dealers to cartels.
Francisco fired back, leaning on a 2023 precedent, Twitter v. Taamneh, where the Supreme Court ruled that Twitter wasn’t liable for terrorist attacks because it didn’t knowingly assist ISIS. He argued the same logic should shield gunmakers here.
Mexico’s lawyer, Catherine Stetson, countered sharply: The defendants “deliberately supply the illegal Mexican market by selling guns through the small number of dealers that they know sell a large number of crime guns.” But her argument hit turbulence when pressed by the justices.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan zeroed in on the vagueness. “What you don’t have is particular dealers, right?” she asked. “There are lots of dealers, and you’re just saying they know that some of them do, but which some of them?”
Stetson pointed to a Washington Post article naming “eight or 10 different dealers,” but conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito weren’t convinced.
“Are there any allegations in the complaint that the two knowingly sell to specific red flag dealers?” Alito pressed. Stetson leaned on a general claim—that gunmakers keep selling to “rogue dealers”—but Barrett echoed Alito’s skepticism, unsatisfied with the lack of specifics.
The discussion took a philosophical turn when conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged Mexico’s stance. “Lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they’re going to be misused by some subset of people. They know that to a certainty,” he said, citing cars and pharmaceuticals.
Stetson shot back with a twist on Francisco’s Budweiser analogy, suggesting the beer giant could be liable if it was “selling bulk quantities of Bud Light to liquor stores that were arranged next to high schools” and “knowing that those liquor stores were regularly serving underage students.”
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, flagged a gap in Mexico’s case. “I worry that without that clarity in a complaint like yours, where we don’t really see exactly how the manufacturers are violating a particular state or federal law, that we’re running up against the very concerns that motivated this act to begin with,” she said.
Adding a geopolitical twist, Alito mused about the flip side. “There are Americans who think that Mexican government officials are contributing to a lot of illegal conduct here,” he said. “So suppose that one of the 50 states sued the government of Mexico for aiding and abetting illegal conduct within the state’s borders that cause the state to incur law enforcement costs, public welfare costs, other costs. Would your client be willing to litigate that case in the courts of the United States?”
Stetson sidestepped, saying she wasn’t “comfortable giving away things like sovereign immunity on behalf of the government of Mexico.”
The tariff Trump imposed overnight—sparked by frustrations over fentanyl and immigration—only heightens the stakes, casting a shadow over this already contentious legal showdown. As the justices deliberate, the outcome could ripple far beyond the courtroom, testing the limits of liability and the ties between two uneasy neighbors.
Stay tuned to The Federalist Wire.
