March 7, 2025 – This week, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Mexico included sufficient factual allegations in its complaint to support its legal claims against seven firearms manufacturers and one distributor. Based on the procedural status of the case and questions from the Court, Mexico’s case appears likely to be dismissed. 

As previously reported, the defendants were successful in having the case dismissed at the very beginning of the case pursuant the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), a federal immunity law. The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss before filing answers or engaging in any discovery. The district court judge granted the motion, holding that the PLCAA prohibited Mexico’s legal claims. Mexico appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and a three judge panel, all appointed by Democratic presidents, overturned the district judge’s decision and sent the case back to the district court. The defendants then asked the Supreme Court to review the case, which it agreed to do.  

The Supreme Court is addressing two questions raised by the defendants on appeal. First, whether Mexico’s allegations that the defendants are “aiding and abetting” the Mexican cartels – by selling firearms to dealers who then sell them to smugglers – is sufficient to plausibly plead an exception to the immunity granted by the PLCAA. Second, if its aiding and abetting claim is legally plausible, whether the intervening criminal acts of the buyers, smugglers, and cartel members breaks the chain of causation as a matter of law. 

During oral argument, most members of the Court seemed highly skeptical of Mexico’s case. The justices appeared ready to hold that manufacturers of legal products, who sit atop of a multi-tier distribution system, cannot aid and abet a downstream criminal enterprise unless the manufacturers affirmatively take part in the conspiracy. In apparent agreement with the defendants’ argument, the justices indicated that alleged knowledge by the manufacturers that some of their firearms end up in Mexico at crime scenes is not sufficient to hold them responsible for aiding and abetting the dealers who originally sold those firearms. And without the aiding and abetting violation of law, the PLCAA prohibits Mexico’s case. 

The proximate cause issue appeared to split the Court along ideological lines. Justice Sotomayor noted that the Court’s prior cases trying to define proximate cause “are a mess” and that doing so in this case could open “a Pandora’s box.”  However, Justice Kavanaugh expressed concern that allowing this case to go forward could dramatically harm other businesses when their products, such as vehicles or alcohol, are criminally misused by third parties.

The Supreme Court will issue its decision in this case by June 26, 2025. Renzulli Law Firm will continue to monitor the case and provide updates when a decision is issued. If you have any questions concerning this case or any firearms related litigation, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.