The Supreme Court just slammed the brakes on Mexico’s attempt to sue U.S. gun manufacturers. On June 5, 2025, a unanimous ruling upheld the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), shielding companies like Smith & Wesson and Glock from foreign blame games. It’s a win for American businesses and a reminder that accountability starts at home.
Breitbart reported that in a single stroke, the court overturned a First Circuit decision that had greenlit Mexico’s claims against eight U.S. gunmakers for allegedly fueling cartel violence south of the border.
Mexico’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, targeted major players like Colt, Ruger, and Beretta, plus a Boston-area wholesaler. The case hinged on the bold claim that these companies knowingly funneled guns to criminals.
Mexico’s argument wasn’t subtle. They claimed 70% to 90% of crime-scene guns in Mexico hailed from the U.S., causing “massive damage” via cartels and crooks. Sounds like a problem, but pointing fingers at American manufacturers feels like blaming a chef for a diner’s heart attack.
Back on August 4, 2021, Mexico launched its legal crusade against six gunmakers and one wholesaler. Barrett, known for a .50 caliber sniper rifle coveted by cartels, later joined the defendant list, bringing the total to eight. The suit accused these firms of actively facilitating illegal arms trafficking.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, loomed large from the start. In September 2022, a district court judge leaned on this law to dismiss Mexico’s case, arguing it shielded U.S. gunmakers from such liability. Mexico, undeterred, appealed, setting the stage for a contentious battle.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit threw Mexico a lifeline. A three-judge panel ruled that the lawsuit might slip past the PLCAA’s defenses, letting it move forward.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen wasn’t having it. On May 22, 2024, he rallied 26 other state attorneys general to oppose Mexico’s lawsuit, calling it an overreach. Knudsen argued, “Mexico’s bad policies created the country’s gun violence problem.”
Knudsen’s point cuts deep: why should American companies pay for Mexico’s failures? The coalition’s stance framed the lawsuit as an attack on lawful businesses, not a solution to cartel chaos. Blaming U.S. gunmakers, they said, was like suing carmakers for drunk drivers.
By August 9, 2024, U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor trimmed Mexico’s case significantly. Most claims were tossed, though Smith & Wesson and a distributor remained in the crosshairs. The stage was set for the Supreme Court to settle the matter.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 4, 2025, with Smith & Wesson’s attorney Noel Francisco delivering a zinger.
He likened Mexico’s claims to “holding beer makers liable for car accidents caused by underage drinking.” It’s a vivid analogy—actions have consequences, but causation isn’t a free-for-all.
Justice Elena Kagan zeroed in on Mexico’s logic. “Mexico never confronts that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, bad-apple or otherwise,” she noted. Her words expose the lawsuit’s weak link: pinning blame on manufacturers ignores the chain of responsibility.
Kagan’s critique underscores a core conservative principle: personal accountability matters.
Mexico’s attempt to sidestep its own border security and corruption issues by targeting U.S. firms doesn’t hold water. The court’s unanimous ruling reflects that clarity.
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict: Mexico’s lawsuit was dead on arrival. The PLCAA, designed to protect gunmakers from frivolous suits, stood firm. The decision reaffirmed that American businesses aren’t scapegoats for foreign policy failures.
This ruling isn’t just about guns—it’s about sovereignty and fairness. Mexico’s cartel problem is real, but expecting U.S. companies to foot the bill is a stretch too far. The court’s message is clear: fix your house before knocking on ours.
