Mexico v. Smith & Wesson, et al.

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its first-ever decision on gun industry liability in a lawsuit brought by Global Action on Gun Violence on behalf of Mexico against firearms manufacturers and one distributor (“Mexico v. Smith & Wesson”). The Court held that Mexico’s lawsuit had not established that the manufacturers aided and abetted illegal downstream gun sales and was therefore barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”)

However, the Court’s opinion, by Justice Kagan, was narrow and did not adopt the gun manufacturers’ calls for sweeping immunity. As a result, the decision should have limited effect on other gun litigation.

• The Supreme Court decision was not the sweeping victory that the gun manufacturers sought; it leaves the door wide open for gun industry liability.
  • Neither the Court nor a single Justice accepted the gun manufacturers’ major arguments that would have provided them with broad immunity, or;
    • embraced the manufacturers’ central argument that they could not be deemed a proximate cause of harm that results from downstream sales;
    • challenged the right of Mexico or other countries to sue U.S. gun manufacturers for harm caused abroad; 
    • questioned that gun manufacturers could be liable for harm caused by downstream sales under PLCAA with additional facts¹;
    • held that gun manufacturers could not be liable for engaging in their “normal” business practices; 
  • If the gun industry’s arguments had been accepted, they could have broadly restricted liability of bad actors beyond in the gun industry as well opioids and other industries; 
  • The opinion only restricts one narrow class of cases – lawsuits shielded by PLCAA against gun manufacturers’ general distribution practices that result in illegal downstream sales; and even those cases are allowed if they more specifically allege involvement with downstream sellers.
• Mexico v. Smith & Wesson accomplished more than many cases that prevail in court:
  • Raised global awareness of the Iron River and the complicity of bad actors in the gun industry in facilitating gun trafficking; 
    • For example, 60 Minutes, the most-watched news show in the U.S., covered this issue and Mexico’s cases. 
  • Launched Mexico’s Arizona dealer case (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports, et al.), which is now in discovery; 
  • Inspired the upcoming Inter-American Court for Human Rights Advisory Opinion on gun industry responsibility and industry immunity, which will have global significance; 
  • Led to international support for Mexico’s anti-trafficking work, including several countries joining amicus briefs in support of Mexico’s lawsuit; 
  • Changed law in positive ways, including by helping inspire the U.S. Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’s prohibitions on cross-border gun trafficking; 
  • Started a global campaign against cross-border gun trafficking and gun industry complicity. 
• Legal actions to reform and hold bad actors in the gun industry accountable will continue. 
  • Mexico’s anti-gun trafficking lawsuit against several gun dealers in Arizona will continue in discovery. 
  • Other pending litigation against bad actors in the gun industry will continue, and future lawsuits against dealers and manufacturers are being explored, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision.  

¹“[T]he predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made.” Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. ____, No. 23-1141, 2025 WL 1583281, at *2 (June 5, 2025). 

Background on Mexico v. Smith & Wesson 

On August 4, 2021, the Government of Mexico filed the first lawsuit by a sovereign country against the gun industry. This landmark case seeks to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for the high levels of gun violence in Mexico caused by firearms trafficked from the United States. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

• In the lawsuit, Mexico seeks to hold American gun manufacturers accountable for their role in facilitating gun trafficking, refusing to take steps that would stop trafficking, and marketing assault weapons, sniper rifles, and other guns sought after by the cartels in that country. 
• GAGV founder and president Jonathan Lowy helped Mexico develop its legal strategy for this case and is co-counsel. 
• On January 22, 2024, in a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in Mexico’s favor, allowing its lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, to proceed. This decision, overturning a lower court’s dismissal, marked a significant legal victory for Mexico.
  • It challenged the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and opened a pathway for holding gun manufacturers accountable for their alleged role in facilitating illegal gun trafficking to Mexico and the resulting surge in gun violence.
  • This ruling underlined the potential global impact of U.S. gun industry practices, setting a precedent for international accountability in the arms trade. 
• The 1^st Circuit reversed a decision issued on September 30, 2022 by Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV which dismissed the case, holding that it was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which gives the gun industry unprecedented immunity from civil liability in the United States. 
• On April 18, 2024, the gun industry defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review two questions from the 1st Circuit’s decisions: whether Mexico’s allegations supported aiding and abetting liability and proximate cause.  
• On August 7, 2024, District Judge Saylor granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by several non-Massachusetts-based defendants. 
• On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court accepted the petition, taking the case. The Court heard arguments on March 4, 2025. The Court issued its decision on June 5, 2025. 
  • The Court held that Mexico’s lawsuit, as drafted, was prohibited by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”). The Court reversed the 1^st Circuit’s ruling that Mexico’s case satisfied PLCAA’s “predicate exception,” which allows liability when manufacturers or dealers knowingly violate laws applicable to the sales and marketing of firearms, and thereby proximately cause harm to the plaintiff.  
  • The Court held that Mexico’s allegations were insufficient to find that the manufacturer defendants aided and abetted illegal downstream gun sales. 
  • The Court refused to consider whether the manufacturers’ conduct could be deemed a proximate cause of harm to Mexico, which was the manufacturers’ lead argument. 

Court filings:
2.2.1. Defendants’ petition for certiorari
2.2.2. Mexico’s brief in opposition to certiorari
2.2.3. Defendants’ reply in favor of certiorari
2.2.4. Supreme Court Order granting writ of certiorari
6.5.25. Supreme Court decision