Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations.
In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit.
The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise.
'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF).
'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.'
The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'.
The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers.
Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people.
Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014.
The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms.
The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice.
That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad.
In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC.
But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country.
The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers.
'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote.
'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.''
On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case.
'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement.
Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'.
But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump says US intelligence ‘wrong' about Iran not building nuclear bomb
United States President Donald Trump has said his director of national intelligence was 'wrong' when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not re-authorised the country's suspended nuclear weapons programme. The comments come after Trump earlier this week cast doubt on Tulsi Gabbard's March 25 report to Congress, in which she reiterated the US intelligence community's assessment. On Tuesday, Trump told reporters, 'I don't care' that the intelligence community's finding contradicted his own claims, saying Iran was in the late stages of developing a nuclear weapon. But speaking on Friday, Trump went further. A reporter asked, 'What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community said they have no evidence.' The president responded, 'Then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?' 'Your DNI [director of national intelligence], Tulsi Gabbard,' the reporter replied. 'She's wrong,' Trump said. It is extremely rare for a US president to openly contradict the country's intelligence community, with critics accusing Trump of flagrantly disregarding evidence to justify potential direct US involvement in the fighting, according to Al Jazeera's senior political analyst Marwan Bishara. 'This is not just one person, one team saying something,' Bishara said. 'It's the entire intelligence community in the United States. That he would dismiss them … it's just astounding.' Speaking on Friday, Trump also appeared to downplay the prospect of the US brokering a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, saying he 'might' support such a deal, while adding, 'Israel's doing well in terms of war, and I think you would say that Iran is doing less well.' 'It's hard to make that request right now. When someone's winning, it's harder than when they're losing,' he added. Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou Castro noted that Trump was 'really making a point that he's not going to make an effort to ask Israel to ease up on its aerial bombing of Iranian targets'. 'It seems that Trump is very squarely on Israel's side as things are progressing, and … it appears that he is not leaning towards the diplomacy route, though, again, he is giving himself that two weeks' time to make a final decision,' she said. Trump on Thursday said he would take two weeks to decide the US response to the conflict. Experts say the decision would likely be transformative. The US is seen as one of the few countries with the leverage to pressure Israel to step back from the brink of wider-scale regional war. At the same time, the involvement of the US military is seen as key to Israel's stated mission of completely dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, which hinges on destroying the underground Fordow enrichment plant. A successful attack on the facility would require both Washington's 30,000-pound (13,000kg) GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and the B-2 bombers needed to deliver it. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump also downplayed the potential role of European countries in de-escalating the situation. That came hours after Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met the top diplomats from France, the UK, Germany and the EU in Geneva. 'Europe is not going to be able to help,' the US president said.
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Top court revives lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from US victims
The Supreme Court has revived long-running lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from Americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel and the occupied West Bank. The United States Supreme Court has upheld a statute passed by Congress to facilitate lawsuits against Palestinian authorities by Americans killed or injured in attacks abroad as plaintiffs pursue monetary damages for violence years ago in Israel and the occupied West Bank. The 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, violated the rights of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization to due process under the US Constitution. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the ruling, said the 2019 jurisdictional law comported with due process rights enshrined in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. 'It is permissible for the federal government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right' to compensation under a federal law known as the Anti-terrorism Act of 1990, Roberts wrote. The US government and a group of American victims and their families had appealed the lower court's decision that struck down a provision of the law. Among the plaintiffs are families who in 2015 won a $655m judgement in a civil case alleging that the Palestinian organisations were responsible for a series of shootings and bombings around Jerusalem from 2002 to 2004. They also include relatives of Ari Fuld, a Jewish settler in the Israel-occupied West Bank who was fatally stabbed by a Palestinian in 2018. Advertisement The ruling comes even as Jewish settlements on Palestinian-owned land are considered illegal under international law. 'The plaintiffs, US families who had loved ones maimed or murdered in PLO-sponsored terror attacks, have been waiting for justice for many years,' said Kent Yalowitz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. 'I am very hopeful that the case will soon be resolved without subjecting these families to further protracted and unnecessary litigation,' Yalowitz added. Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, and now Iran, served as a backdrop to the case. Since the war in Gaza began in October 2023, more than 55,000 people have been killed and 130,000 wounded, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA US courts for years have grappled over whether they have jurisdiction in cases involving the Palestinian Authority and PLO for actions taken abroad. Under the language at issue in the 2019 law, the PLO and Palestinian Authority automatically 'consent' to jurisdiction if they conduct certain activities in the United States or make payments to people who attack Americans. Roberts in Friday's ruling wrote that Congress and the president enacted the jurisdictional law based on their 'considered judgment to subject the PLO and PA (Palestinian Authority) to liability in US courts as part of a comprehensive legal response to 'halt, deter and disrupt' acts of international terrorism that threaten the life and limb of American citizens'. New York-based US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in 2022 that the law violated the due process rights of the PLO and Palestinian Authority. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. President Joe Biden's administration initiated the government's appeal, which subsequently was taken up by President Donald Trump's administration. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 1.
Al Jazeera
16 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Project 2025: Governance reform or Culture War battle plan?
Project 2025 became a flashpoint during the 2024 presidential campaign. The sweeping conservative policy blueprint aims to overhaul the federal government and reshape United States society. How closely is President Donald Trump following its direction? And how much does it test the limits of the Constitution? Marc Lamont Hill talks to Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation.
