Unmasking Negligence: Legal Battles Against Gun Manufacturers

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, where the Mexican government is suing the gun manufacturer, alleging that the defendants “actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico.”[1] This case raises critical legal questions regarding the responsibility of gun companies for how their products are used, their role in preventing illegal trafficking, and the interpretation of laws governing liability in gun sales. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the firearms industry and international relations.

The foundation of this case rests on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which aims to shield gun companies from lawsuits. The law states: “Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.” [2]

Under this law, companies like Smith & Wesson are exempt from liability as long as they do not intend for their products to be used in illegal activities. In their Amicus Brief, Smith & Wesson argues that “[the Supreme Court] should grant review to ensure that proximate cause remains a part of any tort and that innocent parties cannot be held liable for third parties’ criminal activity.”[3] Thus, Smith & Wesson is seeking to avoid liability by filing a motion to dismiss based on the protections afforded by the PLCAA. However, the Boston Court of Appeals ruled that the law “doesn’t shield the companies, pointing to Mexico’s allegations that the gunmakers intentionally trade with suppliers for the cartels.”[4] Smith & Wesson’s attempt to have the case dismissed by the Supreme Court is a bid to circumvent the Boston Circuit's decision and prevent the lawsuit from advancing. If the Supreme Court dismisses the case, it would represent a significant victory for gun manufacturers, further strengthening their legal protections against civil suits. Such a ruling could set a dangerous precedent, limiting future efforts to hold gun companies accountable for crimes committed with their products.

Advocates for increased accountability argue that doing so would incentivize gun companies to prioritize safety standards. The Center for American Progress highlights that “the PLCAA removes the ability to use civil litigation as a way to pressure gun industry actors into improving product safety and preventing negligent or criminal use of their products.”[5] Without sufficient oversight, some scholars argue that this could result in fewer safety measures and increased violence. Additionally, if gun manufacturers can evade liability for actions that should be legally accountable—particularly when their actions are alleged to be intentional—it could lead to further legal dilemmas. This would allow gun companies to operate with impunity, irrespective of the harm caused or the intent behind their actions.

The future of the PLCAA has already been called into question due to recent cases challenging its constitutionality. According to the Giffords Law Center, “a Pennsylvania appeals court panel ruled in August 2022 that PLCAA was an unconstitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment, which states that ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’”[6] If this ruling successfully overturns the PLCAA, it would have significant implications for holding the gun industry accountable through litigation, especially for the ongoing Supreme Court case. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected by July of next year, will have profound implications for the gun industry and the ability of individuals to hold manufacturers liable. The PLCAA has already significantly impacted the gun industry, and the Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos ruling will be highly impactful especially if the case is dismissed.

Sources:

1. Mayela Celis, Brace yourself: The US Supreme Court has granted certiorari, (October 17, 2024), https://conflictoflaws.net/2024/brace-yourself-the-us-supreme-court-has-granted-certiorari-in-the-firearms-case-of-smith-wesson-brands-inc-et-al-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos-mexico/
2. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, PUBLIC LAW 109–92 (2005).
3. Brief for the Supreme Court, p. 9, Mexico v. S & W (2024)
4. Greg Stohr, Smith & Wesson Gets Supreme Court Review on Mexico Gun Suit (1), (Oct. 4, 2024, 10:40 AM EDT), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/us-law-week/XFPEIOHS000000?bna_news_filter=us-law-week
5. Center for American Progress, Frequently Asked Questions About Gun Industry Immunity, (May 4, 2021), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/frequently-asked-questions-gun-industry-immunity/
6.  Giffords Law Center, Gun Industry Immunity https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/gun-industry-immunity/