Shreveport Reporter

The House of Representatives has submitted an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners in the case of Smith & Wesson Inc., et al. v. Mexico. This legal dispute addresses whether American gun manufacturers and wholesalers can be held liable for crimes committed by drug cartels in Mexico using their products.

The lawsuit was initiated by the Mexican government in 2021 but was dismissed by a district court based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) enacted in 2005. However, the First Circuit revived the case on appeal, citing an exception to the PLCAA that allowed Mexico's suit to continue.

In its brief, the House contends that Mexico is attempting to bypass Congress by seeking judicial imposition of extensive regulations on the firearms industry—regulations that Congress has chosen not to enact. The House argues that such relief would undermine Congressional authority over firearm regulation, a concern reflected when Congress passed the PLCAA.

The House’s brief states: “[I]f affirmed, the decision below would short-circuit the legislative process and usurp Congressional authority. The Constitution assigns firearms-related policy decisions to the American people’s elected representatives, subject to the constraints of the Second Amendment. The Mexican government’s radical request for injunctive relief would instead allow federal courts to make those important decisions. Such a result would turn our constitutional structure on its head, and the Court should not permit it.”

Congress originally enacted PLCAA as a response to numerous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for criminal misuse of their products. These lawsuits aimed at securing substantial damages and imposing new regulations through judicial means—a tactic Congress identified as an attempt to achieve policy objectives outside of legislative channels.

Mexico's current litigation seeks similar outcomes, holding U.S. gun companies accountable for cartel violence within its borders while urging federal courts to mandate specific safety features on firearms—a move Congress has avoided legislating.

According to lower court findings, this suit falls under a narrow statutory exception allowing cases against companies knowingly violating firearm laws if such violations directly cause harm. The House disputes this interpretation, arguing that Petitioners have not broken any law since they sell legal products through federally licensed dealers and are removed from direct cartel actions.

Furthermore, cartels are independent criminal organizations whose harmful activities constitute intervening causes between lawful conduct in America and violence in Mexico—a key point supporting Petitioners' lack of liability under standard legal principles.

BLAG—the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group comprising key congressional leaders—endorsed filing this brief with backing from majority leadership but not minority leaders.

###