SCOTUS Says Mexican Government Failed to Allege Criminality in Suing US Gun Makers
The Supreme Court on June 5 said the Mexican government failed to "plausibly allege" that seven U.S. gun manufacturers "aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers." As a result, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars the lawsuit, a unanimous court held.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The suit was originally filed in 2021 in Massachusetts to allege that the largest U.S. gun makers and one gun distributor aided the trafficking of guns into Mexico (see 2108050037). The complaint accused the gun makers of marketing, distributing, selling and designing guns in ways that knowingly arm Mexican drug cartels through corrupt gun dealers and illegal sales practices.
The district court tossed the case under the PLCAA, which generally bars lawsuits against gun manufacturers for criminal or unlawful activity committed with firearms they have sold, though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit let the case proceed. The appellate court said the suit fell under an exception in the statute that allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers or sellers if they "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing" of firearms.
Since aiding and abetting firearm trafficking is a crime, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the Mexican government had alleged the gun manufacturers had done just that.
The court said the Mexican government failed to make such a showing. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said the complaint fails to "pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted." The Mexican government instead "levels a more general accusation" that all gun makers assist "some number of unidentified rogue dealers in violation of various legal bars." The "systematic nature" of this claim only heightens Mexico's burden, Kagan said, adding that the complaint must be backed by "plausible allegations of pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance" to survive.
Mexico's lead claim, that the manufacturers choose to sell to "known rogue dealers," doesn't clear this bar, the court said, since it's "far from clear that such behavior, without more, could ever count as aiding and abetting under the Court’s precedents." In addition, Mexico hasn't "said enough to make its allegations on this point plausible," since it doesn't confront the fact that the manufacturers don't directly supply any dealers, nor does it name any "bad-apple dealers," Kagan said.
Mexico has only alleged that gun makers know "some unidentified dealers routinely violate the law -- but this describes 'indifference' rather than assistance," the court said.
Mexico's second set of allegations, that the gun makers have declined to suitably regulate the dealers' practices, can't fill the gap, the court held. Such non-action is deemed "passive nonfeasance," and isn't enough to conclude that the manufacturers aided and abetted gun trafficking, particularly in light of the existing intensive regulatory regime covering firearms, Kagan said. The court also said nothing about the companies' "design and marketing decisions," such as the production of "military style" assault weapons or guns with Spanish-language names, changes the court's conclusion.