Legal Docket: Mexico sues U.S. gunmakers

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 17th day of March, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Gun violence south of the border is staggering. In 2022 alone, Mexico recorded more than 30,000 homicides—most of them tied to cartel violence.

MONTAGE: This is the capital of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, a city turned battleground / in a cartel civil war. / While helicopters circled loudly overhead, amid a fresh surge in cartel violence / “never before have we seen so many people dead” / The Sinaloa cartel, once united, now fights itself after a sudden past struggle split the empire. / The violence follows the arrest of Sinaloa cartel co-founder Ismael Zambada along with the son of former kingpin / Joaquin Guzman, better known as El Chapo. / Now they’re in U.S. prisons and their sons are battling for control. It appears to be to the death.

EICHER: This is a gun battle that broke out near the Mexico-U.S. border. It’s also the sound of American-made weapons.

And that’s at the heart of another battle raging—a legal battle—before the highest court in the United States.

The government of Mexico is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court for help.

REICHARD: Mexico is arguing that because hundreds of thousands of firearms flood into its country every year—trafficked from the U-S—it’s entitled to that help.

But note the parties to this case:

ROBERTS: We'll hear argument this morning in Case 23-1141, Smith & Wesson Brands versus Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

The Mexican government is not suing gun smugglers. Not the cartels. Instead, it’s taking aim at major American gun makers—Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta, and more.

To make its case, Mexico leans on a legal concept called “proximate cause.” In simple terms, it argues that U.S. gun makers touch off a chain reaction—one that leads ultimately to cartel violence. And because their actions are so closely linked to the bloodshed, Mexico says, gunmakers should be held responsible.

EICHER: But the gunmakers say no way. Their defense? A 2005 federal law: the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That law shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits when criminals misuse their products.

At the Supreme Court lawyer Noel Francisco spoke for Smith & Wesson and the others.

(As always, we do edit some but not all of these exchanges for time and clarity—while carefully retaining proper context.)

FRANSCISCO: Indeed, if Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash.

REICHARD: Mexico’s attorney, Catherine Stetson, says this isn’t just about criminals misusing guns. She argues that U.S. gun makers are knowingly aiding and abetting illegal gun trafficking—helping smugglers sidestep federal firearms laws.

That led Justice Clarence Thomas to ask: Where is federal law enforcement in all this?

THOMAS: …you say in your complaint there is a violation but there’s been no finding of a violation. How do we know there is a violation?

STETSON: I think what the --what the district court would determine at summary judgment, if the evidence comes back and says, for example, these manufacturers simply had no idea what their distributors were doing…

EICHER: Stetson responded that it’s up to the lower courts to decide whether gun makers knowingly sell to bad actors.

Justice Thomas asked the gun makers’ attorney Francisco to trace the chain of custody. How exactly do these firearms move from manufacturers to criminals, in detail.

THOMAS: Would you just list the chain for our benefit?

FRANCISCO: Sure. It starts out with a licensed manufacturer, a manufacturer that the federal government says is allowed to make firearms. It then distributes its legal firearms to licensed distributors, distributors who the federal government says are allowed to distribute them. They then sell to licensed retailers, retailers that the federal government says are allowed to retail. Those retailers, some very small percentage of them, an unknown number but some small percentage of them, transfer those firearms illegally to straw purchasers. The straw purchaser then hands it over to the actual purchaser. You then have a smuggle across an international border, yet another violation of law.

…going on to explain that the smuggler then gives the guns to the cartels who are illegally possessing them in Mexico in defiance of Mexican law.

FRANCISCO: Then the Mexican cartels engage in murder and mayhem against the good people of Mexico, all of which in turn causes the Mexican government to have to spend money to respond to that murder and mayhem. With respect, there's not a single case in history that comes close to that.

REICHARD: That long, drawn-out answer? Intentional. It highlights just how far removed U.S. gun makers are from the crimes Mexico blames them for.

Proximate cause means a direct, unbroken chain of events leading to harm. But are the gun makers really that close to cartel violence?

Justice Samuel Alito cut to the chase with a question the average American might ask, in this exchange with Mexico’s attorney Stetson:

ALITO: Mexico says that U.S. gun manufacturers are contributing to illegal conduct in Mexico. There are Americans who think that Mexican government officials are contributing to a lot of illegal conduct here. So suppose that one of the 50 states sued the government of Mexico for aiding and abetting illegal conduct within the state's borders that causes the state to incur law enforcement costs, public welfare costs, other costs. Would your client be willing to litigate that case in the courts of the United States?

STETSON: So I can't and certainly, you know, don't --don't feel comfortable giving away things like sovereign immunity on behalf of the government of Mexico.

ALITO: I understand that. So the argument basically is it’s a one-way street.

EICHER: Another key piece of proximate cause is “foreseeability.”

In other words, was gun trafficking a predictable result of the gun makers’ actions?

That kicked off a debate over intent.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed to a Supreme Court ruling from two years ago—often called the Twitter case. The justices decided that social media companies can’t be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorism just because terrorists used their platforms to recruit and fundraise. Even if the platforms knew it was happening.

REICHARD: So how does that logic apply here? Justice Barrett references two cases in this exchange with Stetson for Mexico:

BARRETT: Let's talk about Twitter. There was a specific rogue actor, ISIS, and there was a specific attack in France. And so the attempt was to draw the line between them, and we said it wasn't enough. In Direct Sales, there was a specific manufacturer, pharmaceutical company, selling to a specific doctor, causing specific harm. And Justice Alito asked you what specific red flag dealers there are. You haven't sued any of the retailers that were the most proximate cause of the harm, and you haven't identified them that I can tell in the complaint.

EICHER: Chief Justice John Roberts took a different approach with Francisco the gun makers' attorney. Listen to this exchange:

ROBERTS: Counsel, the complaint says that 2 percent of the guns manufactured in the United States find their way into Mexico, and I know you dispute that, but is there a number where your legal analysis might have to be altered? If it's 10 percent, if it's 20 percent? At some point, the proximate cause lines that you draw really can't bear the weight of the ultimate result.

FRANCISCO: So, Your Honor…. If we're talking about proximate cause, I don't think that the percentage would actually matter when you have a multitude of intervening independent crimes.

And Stetson for Mexico agreed that the numbers really aren’t the problem:

STETSON: --so up to 600,000 of defendants' guns are likely trafficked into Mexico every year. That's your 2 percent. But I think the issue is not so much whether it’s 2 or 10 or 70. It's do these manufacturers know who the rogue dealers are and what they're doing?

If that argument holds, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wanted to know—where does it stop? How far could this liability extend?

KAVANAUGH: …lots of sellers and manufacturers of ordinary products know that they're going to be misused by some subset of people? They know that to a certainty, that it's going to be pharmaceuticals, cars, what --you can name lots of products. So that's a real concern, I think, for me about accepting your theory of aiding-and-abetting liability. Be interested in your reactions.

STETSON: This case is --marches through in detail allegations taken as true at this stage that these manufacturers know that they are selling a dangerous product to specific rogue dealers who are --who are selling to straw purchasers for the cartels across the country.

Mexico is also seeking a massive payout—$10 billion in damages.

But Francisco fires back: the cost of law enforcement and crime prevention? That’s Mexico’s responsibility.

Gun makers warn that if Mexico wins, the floodgates fly open. Auto companies, alcohol manufacturers, even social media platforms—all could face lawsuits over how their products are misused.

On the other side, gun control advocates are backing Mexico, arguing that the relevant law here, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, goes too far and shouldn’t grant absolute immunity.

REICHARD: The conservative justices seemed to lean Smith & Wesson’s way, hesitant to stretch proximate cause that far. Surprisingly, even some liberal justices appeared to agree.

If the gunmakers win—and I think they will—it’ll slam the door on lawsuits like this in the future.

But a win for Mexico? That would reshape corporate liability in a big way—expanding it far beyond gun makers.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.