( Spanish) – In an unprecedented event because it is a lawsuit from a foreign government, the United States Supreme Court, at the request of seven gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, and the distributor Interstate Arms, will decide whether a federal law will prevent Mexico from sue for allegedly providing the weapons that ultimately reach the drug cartels operating in the country.
A judge had rejected the Mexican Government’s lawsuit because a law in force exempts weapons manufacturers from any responsibility for the illegal use of their products. However, an appeals court reopened that case.
Gun manufacturers asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, arguing that it could open the door to an avalanche of lawsuits from other government entities, both foreign and U.S., seeking to hold the gun industry accountable for violence perpetrated by the users of their products.
Esther Sánchez Gómez, director of Litigation at the Giffords Center, told that this is the first time the Supreme Court will consider a broad immunity statute for the gun industry and that, in many cases, this could grant immunity to the industry in the face of conduct that harms people in communities in both the United States and Mexico.
The Mexican Government’s lawsuit against weapons manufacturers and distributors, filed in 2021, demands compensation for the economic and social damages derived from armed violence, which has left a trail of pain throughout the country.
Mexico argues that “almost all” of the weapons recovered (between 70% and 90%) after the criminal actions were trafficked from the United States, according to court documents.
Lawyers for the Government of Mexico, who asked the court not to disturb the First Circuit ruling, defended the logic of the ruling and noted that it was “premature” for the Supreme Court to take up the case.
If the court rules in favor of Mexico, the lawyers consulted affirm that the decision could set a precedent for future lawsuits against the arms industry, which is the main fear of companies in the sector in the United States.
“I think a ruling in favor of Mexico would incentivize US-based manufacturers and distributors to act in a way that does not directly target a criminal market,” Sánchez Gómez told .
“This could force them to reconsider how they distribute and market their weapons. Legislative regulation is a separate issue, especially with the upcoming elections, but a decision could signal that the industry cannot act without consequences,” he stressed.
Although this case is unique because the Government of Mexico is the plaintiff, there are other lawsuits in the U.S. that raise similar questions about the gun industry’s responsibility in targeting criminal markets, according to experts.
However, Sánchez Gómez explains that the court is currently discussing a motion to dismiss, meaning it is evaluating only the allegations initially presented and whether they are sufficient to continue the lawsuit.
“This is not the final decision on whether the damages to Mexico can be compensated, but rather whether the lawsuit can move forward,” he explained.
Some experts indicate that the direction of the demand could influence the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States regarding cooperation on the issue of arms trafficking. However, Professor Raquel Saed, from the Universidad Iberoamericana, said that the relations between both countries are complex and cannot be reduced to a single issue.
“The main one is migration and drug trafficking, but it also includes economic, cultural, family and security aspects. “A narrative could emerge suggesting that Mexico is interfering in the Supreme Court and cannot control its organized crime, which is part of the narrative of some arms manufacturers in this Court of Appeals,” Saed said.
The expert stated that, as the elections in the United States will take place in less than a month, the narrative of the presidential candidates on weapons could change in a context in which armed violence is one of the topics of debate in the contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.
“We will have to see if what is going to happen next week, when the hearings are held, becomes politicized for the electoral issue,” he stated.
The implications of this case go beyond the Government of Mexico’s lawsuit and could set a global precedent for victims of gun violence.
Thus, the Supreme Court of the United States faces, in a process that could last up to a year, the challenge of a sovereign State that demands justice for the impact of arms trafficking on its citizens and the future of a multibillion-dollar arms industry that alleges its lack of responsibility for the illegal actions of users of its products and claims the protection of US law.
Add Comment