The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government against several U.S. gun manufacturers, citing federal protections for gun makers under existing law. The decision, issued on June 5, 2025, was authored by Justice Elena Kagan and is being viewed as a clear interpretation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The lawsuit, filed by Mexico, sought to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for the role that some of their firearms have allegedly played in violent crime across the border. Mexican officials argued that specific marketing and design decisions contributed to the illegal flow of weapons into their country and, by extension, to cartel violence. However, the court found that the claims could not override the protections granted by the PLCAA.
Justice Kagan wrote the opinion for the Court, which emphasized the legal protections that shield firearm companies from liability when their products are used unlawfully by third parties. She explained that, although Mexico argued the companies had intentionally marketed and produced firearms that appealed to criminal elements, those claims did not meet the legal standards necessary to move forward.
Kagan specifically addressed the firearms mentioned in the lawsuit, including AR-15 rifles, AK-47-style rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. She noted that these types of firearms are widely legal in the United States and purchased by many lawful consumers. In her words, “Those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” Kagan added that manufacturers cannot be held responsible for criminal misuse of these firearms, even if they are also favored by cartel members.
Kagan writes for the Court, saying that Mexico has not alleged more than a sheer possibility that S&W and other gun companies were trying to arm the cartels. pic.twitter.com/ZlRw2Zqjic
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) June 5, 2025
The Court emphasized that the PLCAA, passed in 2005, was designed to prevent lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers when their products are used illegally by others. The legislation was enacted to guard against what supporters called “frivolous lawsuits” that blamed companies for crimes committed with legally sold firearms. In this case, the Court determined that Mexico’s claims fell squarely within the scope of the law’s protections.
Justice Kagan further stated, “So this suit remains subject to PLCAA’s general bar: An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico’s, it is founded on a third party’s criminal use of the company’s product.”
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has unanimously thrown out Mexico’s $10B lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and six other US g*nmakers that alleged they should be held responsible for cartel violence.
Justice Elena Kagan: “Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the… pic.twitter.com/HgOrfCiPU1
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) June 5, 2025
This ruling marks the latest in a series of decisions by the Supreme Court that have examined the intersection of gun rights, gun violence, and manufacturer liability. The Court’s unanimous stance in this case underscores a shared judicial interpretation of PLCAA as providing broad immunity to gun manufacturers from lawsuits tied to unlawful uses of their products.
The decision is expected to have significant implications not just for international efforts to hold American gun makers accountable, but also for similar lawsuits filed within the United States. Legal experts are already reviewing the ruling for guidance in other ongoing cases involving firearm-related litigation.
For now, the Supreme Court’s opinion sends a clear message about the limits of legal accountability for gun manufacturers under U.S. law. The Court concluded that even international actors like the Mexican government cannot bypass the protections established by federal statute. The outcome may affect future diplomatic and legal discussions around arms trafficking and cross-border crime, though it does not close the door on other types of legal or political solutions.
