We've known for almost two months that the Supreme Court will decide the future of Mexico's lawsuit against several U.S. gunmakers that accuses them of aiding and abetting cartel violence south of the border, but now we have a date for oral arguments in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unios Mexicanos. 

The justices have calendared the case for oral arguments on March 4, 2025, which means we're likely to get a decision in the case towards the end of the court's term next June. At issue is whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico, as well as whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked south of the border. 

U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor dismissed the case against the gunmakers back in 2022, ruling that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act "unequivocally bars lawsuits seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of individuals using guns for their intended purpose", but the First Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit. In its decision, the appellate court held that Mexico plausibly alleged U.S. gun companies  violated the federal law against aiding and abetting firearms trafficking, and said it was likely that the companies' business practices are the "proximate cause" of Mexico's cartel violence.

The First Circuit kicked the case back down to Saylor, who in August of this year once again dismissed the lawsuit against most of the defendants, ruling that the companies had no real ties to the state of Massachusetts, where the lawsuit was filed. 

Mexico's foreign ministry responded by saying that legal action against the six firms would continue and that it was considering presenting an appeal or resorting to other U.S. courts.

"This decision does not affect the lawsuit against these two companies nor does it absolve the other six companies of responsibility," the ministry told Reuters.

The two remaining defendants are Smith & Wesson Brands, which in 2021 announced it was relocating to Tennessee from Massachusetts over gun regulations, and wholesaler Witmer Public Safety Group.

Saylor's second opinion is now on appeal as well, but if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the defendants the entirety of Mexico's lawsuit, which seeks $10 billion in damages, will be kaput. In their cert petition to SCOTUS, attorneys for Smith & Wesson and other manufacturers made the stakes of the litigation crystal clear. 

Absent this Court’s intervention, Mexico’s multi-billion-dollar suit will hang over the American firearms industry for years, inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters. Worse, so long as the decision below remains good law, scores of similar suits are destined to follow from other governments, both foreign and domestic—all seeking to distract from their own political failings by laying the blame for criminal violence at the feet of the American firearms industry. Even if ultimately unsuccessful, the costs of that litigation will be devastating—not only for defendants, but more importantly for the millions of law-abiding Americans who rely on the firearms industry to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights. This type of lawfare is exactly what Congress enacted PLCAA to avoid. 

At bottom, this case reduces to a clash of national values: Mexico makes no secret that it abhors this country’s approach to firearms, and that it wants to use the American court system to impose domestic gun controls on the United States that the American people themselves would never accept through the ordinary political process. But even though that grievance is placed under the lettering of a complaint, and was filed on a docket, it has no basis in law. This Court’s review is badly needed.

Mexico's claims that U.S. gunmakers are willfully aiding and abetting the cartels are utterly baseless, and ignore the role that corrupt government officials in Mexico play in fueling the cartel violence. Beyond the corruption that's inherent at all levels of government in Mexico, the "hugs, not bullets" strategy adopted by former Mexico president Andrés Manuel López Obrador and continued by his successor Claudia Sheinbaum has also played a major role in the growth and strength of the cartels. 

Dismissing Mexico's case should be an easy call for the Supreme Court. It's not U.S. gunmakers who are responsible for the cartels' violence. It's the cartels themselves. And if any group is aiding and abetting their chaos and destruction, it's the Mexican government itself. The shameless scapegoating of the American firearms industry needs to stop, and thankfully SCOTUS will get the opportunity to shut it down in just a few months.