In a rare unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Mexico can not successfully sue Smith & Wesson and six other gun companies for the misuse of their products by drug cartels in Mexico.

Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and six other gun companies, claiming that these companies knowingly helped traffic firearms to cartels south of the border. The United States has a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that bars lawsuits against gun manufacturers for misuse of their products. The PLCAA does have an exception called the predicate exception, which allows some lawsuits. That exception states that a firearms company can be sued if a manufacturer or seller “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms and the “violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”

Mexico tried to use the predicate exception to sue the gun companies, claiming that they designed and named guns to appeal to cartel members. The country also contended that the companies made serial numbers easy to obliterate by design.

Attorneys for Mexico claimed that companies did not do enough to prevent gun trafficking to the Mexican drug cartels. However, Smith & Wesson and the other companies named in the suit do not sell directly to customers. This argument failed at the District Court level, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the lower Court’s decision and found in favor of Mexico, ultimately sending this case to the Supreme Court.

The gun companies sell their wares in bulk to firearms distributors. These distributors will then sell the products to local gun stores. Gun stores sell firearms to the general public. A gun runner will buy the guns from the firearms purchaser and traffic the guns to Mexico, where they are resold to drug cartel members. The gun companies sued are far removed from this step, and it would be impossible to assume they would know which guns will be trafficked.

Mexico did not claim that these companies knew their guns would be trafficked, and SCOTUS ruled that this is one reason why PLCAA bars this lawsuit.

“Held: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

Justice Kagan pointed out that if the Mexico suit were allowed to continue, it would gut the PLCAA. She contended that Congress never intended the predicate exception to be used the way Mexico was trying to use it in this case. She and the other Justices rejected the United States’ southern neighbor’s arguments.

Kagan wrote: “This conclusion aligns with PLCAA’s core purpose. Congress enacted PLCAA to halt lawsuits attempting to make gun manufacturers pay for harms resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms. Mexico’s suit closely resembles those lawsuits. And while the predicate exception allows some such suits to proceed, accepting Mexico’s theory would swallow most of the rule. The Court doubts Congress intended to draft such a capacious way out of PLCAA, and in fact it did not.”

The Supreme Court referenced two cases in its opinion. The first case was Direct Sales Co. v. United States. Direct Sales Co. was an online pharmacy that sold narcotics to doctors. The company sold a small-town doctor 5,000 to 6,000 half-grain tablets of morphine per month, whereas the average doctor might prescribe 400 quarter-grain tablets annually. Law enforcement warned the mail-order pharmacy that the doctor was suspected of illegal drug dealing with the pills. Despite the warnings issued by law enforcement, the mail-order pharmacy continued to sell to him, even offering him special discounts due to the size of his purchases. Justice Kagan stated that if this were the situation, gun companies could be sued, but noted that it was not.

The second case referenced is Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh. In that case, Twitter (now X) was sued over ISIS terrorist attacks. The social media company allowed ISIS to post propaganda and recruit on its website. The Court ruled the company could not be sued because it had no direct knowledge of the terrorist attacks ISIS was planning. By contrast, the gun companies had even less understanding of guns being trafficked to Mexican drug cartel members and who the “bad apples” were.

According to SCOTUS, if Twitter could not be held accountable for its inaction, then the gun companies shouldn’t be either.

Most significant firearm related dicta EVER from SCOTUS:

“‘military style’ assault weapons … AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. … are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country”

— Rob Olson (@Robert_J_Olson) June 5, 2025

Mexico claimed that the companies designed guns to appeal to cartel members by giving them Spanish names and making them flashy. SCOTUS highlights that these design choices appeal to more than just Mexican drug cartel members. They appeal to many Americans from diverse backgrounds, including Mexican-American gun owners. Just because Mexican drug cartel members like a design doesn’t mean others do not. This would be like Toyota being sued for its popular Hilux model because terrorist organizations prefer the truck over other brands.

The opinion reads: “Finally, Mexico’s allegations about design and marketing decisions add nothing of consequence. 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. The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history—while they may be ‘coveted by the cartels,’ they also may appeal to ‘millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.’ Even the failure to make guns with non-defaceable serial numbers cannot show that manufacturers have ‘joined both mind and hand’ with lawbreakers in the manner required for aiding and abetting.”

The opinion was short and concise. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment and remanded the case to the First Circuit Court to rule in favor of the seven gun companies. This case is just one example of lawfare used to try to bankrupt gun companies. The Bloomberg-funded Everytown Law has been assisting Mexico in the lawsuit and has helped many states and municipalities file lawsuits against firearms companies and retailers.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.