The Supreme Court is handing a big win to American firearms manufacturers by blocking a $10 billion lawsuit brought by the government of Mexico seeking to blame the industry for violence south of the border.

The lawsuit, Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith and Wesson, involved seven American gun manufacturers, including famous firearms brands such as Beretta, Colt, Glock, and Ruger, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels.

According to the Mexican government, as many as 90 percent of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States.

The justices ruled unanimously that the case could not move forward under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which provides broad protections for gun manufacturers facing liability lawsuits.

The Mexican government’s lawyers tried to claim the trafficking of weapons falls under an exemption in the law that allows civil lawsuits to be filed. The court rejected that argument, with Justice Elena Kagan writing that the suit “does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion stating the court needed to more fully examine the meaning of a violation under the liability shield to cut down on future lawsuits.

The case began in 2021, but a federal judge tossed it under the shield law. An appeals court revived it, saying the case fell under one of the exemptions. The gun manufacturers appealed to the justices to block the lower court ruling allowing the case to continue.

The gunmakers warned that, if successful, the case could “bankrupt the American firearms industry.” They argued that if Mexico’s logic prevailed, “then Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash.”

Mexico had asked the Supreme Court to let the case play out.

In an amicus brief filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, 16 states and the District of Columbia argue that the Mexican government has the right under the liability law to seek damages for gun manufacturers’ business practices. 

Nothing in the federal gunmaker liability law “expresses in unmistakably clear language an intent to erect broad immunity for gun manufacturers and sellers,” the states wrote. “Rather, the statute authorizes actions, like the one brought by Mexico here, alleging that gun manufacturers have knowingly violated state and federal statutes.”

The executive director of the Duke University Center for Firearms Law, Andrew Willinger, told the Sun he expected today’s ruling and was not too surprised that it was unanimous.

However, he says the justices left the door open over how specific allegations must be to meet an exception under the shield law. “There’s still some uncertainty here that may arise in future cases, including if Mexico files an amended complaint in the district court as I suspect it may,” Mr. Willinger says.

He adds that he doesn’t expect this decision to have a major effect on ongoing lawsuits involving state statutes and the firearms industry. “Those laws attempt to impose more concrete requirements directly on gun makers to monitor their distribution, sales, and marketing practices,” Mr. Willinger says.