WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Tuesday regarding a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico against major U.S. firearm manufacturers. The lawsuit alleges that the companies’ business practices contribute to gun violence perpetrated by cartels.
The gun manufacturers dispute these allegations and have appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a previous ruling that allowed the lawsuit to proceed, despite U.S. law generally protecting gun makers from legal action.
The Supreme Court’s decision could also impact a specific legal avenue that enabled families affected by the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School to secure a settlement from the gun manufacturer Remington.
Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects of the case:
Why did Mexico sue U.S. gun companies?
Mexico enforces strict gun control measures and maintains limited locations for legal firearm purchases. However, cartels smuggle thousands of guns into the country.
The Mexican government asserts that 70% of these weapons originate from the United States. The lawsuit claims that the defendant companies were aware that their weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico, yet they chose to profit from this market.
The defendants include prominent manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, and Glock. The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, and even if the court rules in favor of Mexico, the country will still need to substantiate its claims.
What do the gun companies say?
Gun manufacturers maintain that there is no proof the industry facilitates trafficking. They also contest Mexico’s data concerning the percentage of weapons sourced from the U.S. They contend that the responsibility for enforcing laws and combating crime lies with the Mexican government, not U.S. gun makers.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law enacted two decades ago, generally shields the industry from civil lawsuits related to crimes committed with firearms. However, Mexico argues that the PLCAA does not apply to crimes committed outside of the United States.
The gun companies are asking the justices to reverse a decision by an appellate court that allowed the case to move forward.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the case falls under an exception to the PLCAA for situations where firearm companies are accused of knowingly violating the law.
What happens next?
This exception has been relevant in other cases.
Victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting argued that the exception applied to their lawsuit because the gun maker had violated state law in its marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, where twenty children and six adults were killed.
The Supreme Court chose not to hear that case. Following a $73 million settlement, the families expressed their hope that it would lead to increased safety measures and accountability.
The justices’ eventual ruling could either restrict or eliminate that legal path, depending on their findings.
___
Stay up-to-date with the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at [AP Supreme Court coverage link].
“`