The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on June 5 that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PCLAA) bars Mexico’s claims that firearm manufacturers “aided and abetted” illegal firearms trafficking to narco-terrorist drug cartels in Mexico.
In Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the Court wrote in the unanimous decision, “Recall that Congress enacted the statute to halt a flurry of lawsuits attempting to make gun manufacturers pay for the downstream harms resulting from misuse of their products. In a ‘findings’ and ‘purposes’ section, Congress explained that PLCAA was meant to stop those suits—to prevent manufacturers (and sellers) from being held ‘liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm[s].’ Mexico’s suit closely resembles the ones Congress had in mind: It seeks to recover from American firearms manufacturers for the downstream damage Mexican cartel members wreak with their guns.”
Following the unanimous decision, Smith & Wesson President and CEO Mark Smith said, “Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision shutting down this ridiculous lawsuit against our company represents not only a big win for Smith & Wesson, but our industry, American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.” The company is based in Maryville, Tennessee.
The unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, states: “The Government of Mexico brought this lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers. As required by a federal statute, Mexico seeks to show (among other things) that the defendant companies participated in the unlawful sale or marketing of firearms. More specifically, Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico’s complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not.”
Mexico filed its claim in a U.S. District Court in Boston in 2021. That district court dismissed the suit based on the PLCAA, which prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry for the criminal misuse by remote third parties.
Mexico appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which revived the lawsuit holding that Mexico’s “aiding and abetting” theory fit within one of the PLCAA’s narrow exceptions. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., successfully petitioned the Supreme Court last year. The case was argued before the Supreme Court in March 2025.
S&W President Smith said, “This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an afront to our nation’s sovereignty and a direct attack on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. It is also only the latest example of their strategy of attacking our company and our industry by bringing one frivolous lawsuit after another, in a blatant abuse of our legal system to advance their anti-Constitutional agenda.”
Mexico had asked for $10 billion in damages against several U.S. firearm manufacturers.
Justice Kagan further wrote in the decision, “The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too. The same is true of firearms with Spanish-language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history. Those guns may be ‘coveted by the cartels,’ as Mexico alleges; but they also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to ‘millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.’”
“This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law. 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,” said NSSF’s Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
Center to Keep & Bear Arms Director Michael McCoy said, “Today the Supreme Court rejected ‘lawfare’ conducted by the Mexican government, which was only a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine our Second Amendment-protected rights by going after firearms manufacturers who make it possible for us to actually exercise those rights. In 2005, Congress specifically rejected this type of end-run around the Constitution; the Supreme Court was right to unanimously reinforce the provisions of that law and – in so doing – fortified our fundamental and natural right to keep and bear arms.” The Center to Keep & Bear Arms is part of the Mountain States Legal Foundation based in Lakewood, Colorado.
“The firearm industry is sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels,” NSSF’s Keene added. “The firearm industry works closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to prevent the illegal straw purchasing of firearms and the illegal transnational smuggling of firearms. This unequivocal decision by the Supreme Court that PLCAA applies, and there is no evidence whatsoever that U.S. manufacturers are in any way responsible is verification of commitment to responsible firearm ownership.”
“Although the Supreme Court reached the correct decision, it’s frankly a shame that it was allowed to continue in the first place, as the District Court appropriately dismissed the case in 2022, and it was then reactivated on appeal,” S&W’s Smith said. “To all American patriots – you can rest assured that Smith & Wesson will always stand and fight for your Constitutional rights at every turn.”
Click here to read the decision.
