American gunmakers just won a sweeping legal victory at the highest level, and the international fallout is only beginning. On Thursday, Justice Elena Kagan and the rest of the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling in a case that pitted the government of Mexico against some of the most powerful names in the U.S. firearms industry.
According to Breitbart, the Supreme Court found that federal law prohibits Mexico’s attempt to hold American gun manufacturers liable for gun violence driven by cartel activity south of the border. The decisive opinion puts to rest years of legal wrangling that had drawn in political leaders from both countries.
Mexico’s lawsuit named Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Century Arms, Colt, Glock, Ruger, Barrett, and the distributor Interstate Arms as responsible for fueling criminal violence by “actively facilitating the unlawful trafficking” of firearms to drug cartels. The Mexican government argued that 70–90% of guns recovered at crime scenes there originated from the United States, laying blame at the feet of U.S. companies for failing to control their products.
The legal showdown began in August 2021, when Mexico filed its sweeping complaint in a U.S. federal court, seeking to hold gun manufacturers liable for what it described as “massive damage” caused by weapons trafficked to criminals. American gunmakers countered by invoking the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law specifically designed to shield the industry from lawsuits arising from crimes committed with their products.
A district court agreed with the manufacturers in September 2022, dismissing Mexico’s claims under the PLCAA. However, the First Circuit Court of Appeals later breathed new life into the case, finding that Mexico’s complaint plausibly alleged a type of claim that may be exempt from the law’s shield in certain situations. This set the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a coalition of 26 state attorneys general in support of the gun industry, arguing that “American firearms manufacturers should not and do not have to answer for the actions of criminals.” Critics of Mexico’s lawsuit argued that the country’s own policies have fueled gun violence and that the United States should not be responsible for crimes committed abroad.
The case took on added significance as it progressed, with advocates on both sides warning of far-reaching implications. In March 2025, Smith & Wesson attorney Noel Francisco compared Mexico’s claims to holding beer makers responsible for car accidents involving underage drinkers—a line of argument that resonated with the justices.
On June 5, Justice Elena Kagan delivered the unanimous opinion. Kagan’s decision cited the PLCAA as the controlling authority, making clear that Congress intended to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits “resulting from the misuse of their products by others.”
Kagan also addressed Mexico’s allegations that manufacturers intentionally supplied firearms to unscrupulous dealers. As she wrote for the court, “In asserting that the manufacturers intentionally supply guns to bad-apple dealers, Mexico never confronts that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, bad-apple or otherwise.”
The ruling closes the door on Mexico’s attempt to use U.S. civil courts as a tool to address cartel violence, and it reaffirms the legal insulation provided to the American gun industry.
While the gun industry and its supporters are celebrating the outcome, critics of the ruling are voicing concern about its consequences. Gun control advocates argue that the PLCAA has created a legal vacuum, preventing victims of gun violence from seeking justice and accountability from manufacturers. They claim that the law allows companies to avoid responsibility for reckless business practices that may contribute to illegal trafficking.
Supporters of Mexico’s lawsuit say the Supreme Court’s decision ignores the devastating impact of American-made firearms on Latin American countries. They point to the high percentage of crime guns traced to the United States as evidence of the need for stronger oversight and legal remedies.
Mexican officials have not ruled out seeking other means of pressuring American companies or the U.S. government to stem the flow of weapons across the border. International critics argue that Thursday’s decision will embolden the gun industry and weaken efforts to curb transnational crime.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, marks a significant victory for Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, Glock, and the other defendants. Mexico’s attempt to hold American gunmakers liable for cartel violence has been blocked by the federal courts, reinforcing the PLCAA’s legal protections.
With this decision, the American firearms industry remains largely immune from foreign lawsuits over the criminal misuse of their products. The Mexican government, for now, must look elsewhere to address the cross-border trafficking of guns and its deadly consequences.
