On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling that dealt a significant blow to Mexico's efforts to hold American gun manufacturers accountable for the flow of firearms into its territory. The court dismissed Mexico's lawsuit accusing major U.S. firearms companies, including Smith & Wesson and Colt, of aiding and abetting illegal gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels—a case that had stirred intense debate over gun industry liability and cross-border violence.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2021, alleged that these manufacturers knowingly maintained distribution networks that allowed firearms to be sold to dealers who then funneled weapons into Mexico’s hands through so-called "straw purchasers." Mexico argued that these weapons, often high-powered and military-style, were a root cause of the violence perpetrated by drug cartels, contributing to widespread harm and economic disruption within its borders.
However, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, ruled that the case was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005. This federal law broadly shields gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products, unless plaintiffs can show that the companies directly aided and abetted unlawful sales. Justice Kagan acknowledged the gravity of gun violence but found that Mexico’s complaint did not plausibly allege that the manufacturers actively facilitated illegal sales to traffickers.
"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. She went on to say, "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." This distinction between knowledge and active assistance was central to the court's reasoning.
The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned a 2024 decision by the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had revived the lawsuit after a lower federal judge initially dismissed it. The appeals court had ruled that Mexico’s allegations fell outside the scope of the PLCAA protections, allowing the case to proceed. But the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the need for concrete allegations showing that manufacturers deliberately helped bring about illegal transactions.
Mexico’s lawsuit also accused the gunmakers of unlawfully designing and marketing their firearms as military-grade weapons to appeal to cartel demand, associating their products with American military and law enforcement imagery. The Mexican government sought monetary damages—potentially up to $10 billion—and a court order compelling the companies to take steps to curb illicit arms trafficking.
Despite the ruling, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement expressing strong disagreement with the decision and vowed to continue pursuing all available legal and diplomatic remedies to combat illicit arms trafficking. The ministry highlighted the devastating impact of trafficked firearms, noting that most gun homicides in Mexico involve weapons illegally brought from the United States, with an estimated annual value exceeding $250 million.
Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence and one of Mexico’s lawyers, criticized the ruling, calling it "the clearest evidence yet that the gun industry's special interest get-out-of-court-free card must be revoked." He had argued that gun manufacturers could not simply hide behind middlemen and deny responsibility for the illegal use of their products.
On the other side, Noel Francisco, representing Smith & Wesson and other companies, welcomed the decision as a vindication of the PLCAA’s intent. "Our client makes a legal, constitutionally protected product that millions of Americans buy and use, and we are gratified that the Supreme Court agreed that we are not legally responsible for criminals misusing that product to hurt people, much less smuggling it to Mexico to be used by drug cartels," he said. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry’s trade association, echoed this stance, emphasizing that sales by licensed retailers are federally regulated and require background checks, making it unfair to hold manufacturers liable for the actions of third parties.
The case unfolded against a backdrop of heightened tensions between the United States and Mexico. President Donald Trump’s administration had pursued aggressive policies targeting immigration and drug trafficking, including threats of tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump frequently cited cross-border violence and the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl as pressing concerns, putting additional strain on bilateral relations.
Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation aimed at reducing the flow of firearms across the border, estimating that at least 200,000 guns are trafficked annually from the U.S. into Mexico. Mexico’s strict gun laws contrast sharply with the relatively permissive environment in the United States, where firearms are widely available. The Mexican government points out that there is only one legal gun store in the entire country, yet illegal weapons are pervasive, mostly supplied by U.S. sources.
Carlos Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico’s Center for Economic Research and Teaching, lamented the ruling on social media, stating, "Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington." His comments underscore the frustration felt by many in Mexico over what they see as insufficient accountability for the gun industry’s role in fueling violence.
The Supreme Court’s decision also sidestepped the complex legal question of proximate cause—who can be held responsible for causing harm—by concluding that Mexico’s allegations failed at the threshold of showing aiding and abetting. This outcome leaves open the broader debate about how best to address the flow of firearms and gun violence between the two countries.
As the ruling reverberates through legal, political, and social spheres, it highlights the challenges in balancing constitutional protections for lawful commerce with the urgent need to curb illegal arms trafficking and its deadly consequences. For Mexico, the fight to stem the tide of guns crossing its border continues, now with fewer legal avenues against manufacturers themselves.
