In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court blocks Mexican arms lawsuit, shielding Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms from suit under the PLCAA.
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 ruling that bars the Mexican government from pursuing its lawsuit against American firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The court overturned a lower court decision that had allowed Mexico to claim that these companies aided drug cartels through illegal weapons trafficking.
The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court in 2021, alleged that Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms deliberately maintained a distribution network supplying firearms dealers known for selling weapons to “straw buyers” who then funneled those guns to cartel groups in Mexico. Mexico’s government argued that this conduct violated both U.S. and Mexican laws and directly contributed to the surge in cartel-related violence north of its border.
At issue was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, or PLCAA. That statute generally shields firearms manufacturers and distributors from liability when third parties misuse their products in crimes. Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms invoked PLCAA to seek dismissal, arguing that Mexico’s claims fell squarely within the law’s broad immunity provisions.
In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston disagreed. It held that Mexico had plausibly alleged “aiding and abetting” and other violations that placed the case outside PLCAA’s core protections. The appeals court noted allegations that the companies marketed guns as “military-grade,” associating them with U.S. military and law enforcement to boost cartel demand. The trial court had found these arguments plausible enough to survive dismissal.
However, the Supreme Court’s high-court opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, reversed the First Circuit. Roberts wrote that PLCAA’s plain language protects arms companies from suits based on third-party misuse of their legally manufactured and sold products. He emphasized that Congress intended to prevent courts from second-guessing legitimate sales of firearms to licensed dealers, even when evidence shows those dealers later transfer the guns illegally. By extending PLCAA’s immunity to cover the conduct Mexico alleged, the Supreme Court closed the door on any further litigation in U.S. courts under these facts.
In a statement after the decision, Smith & Wesson said, “We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognized the clear intent of Congress in passing the PLCAA. We manufacture and sell legal products to licensed dealers. We do not control or track individuals once those dealers resell to third parties.” Interstate Arms echoed that statement, adding, “We follow strict federal requirements for lawful sales. We cannot be held responsible when downstream purchasers act illegally.”
Mexico’s Justice Department responded that it “respectfully disagrees” with the ruling and is “exploring legal options.” In its original complaint, Mexico noted that it enforces one of the world’s strictest gun-control regimes, yet over 70 percent of firearms used in Mexican homicides come from the United States. Mexican officials estimate that American-made guns trafficked across the border carry a value exceeding $250 million annually and fuel cartel violence in cities like Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez.
Legal experts say the ruling will have significant implications for cross-border litigation. “This decision reaffirms broad immunity under PLCAA,” said Harvard law professor Daniel Fisher. “It makes clear that foreign governments cannot use U.S. courts to target American gun makers for third-party misuse.” Others note that Mexico might pivot to international forums or push for diplomatic negotiations to address trafficking concerns.
Despite the setback, Mexico’s social and political pressure on U.S. officials may intensify. The ruling arrives amid escalating tensions over cartel violence and demands for tighter gun regulations in the U.S. Southwest. Many U.S. lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed disappointment, calling for stronger cross-border cooperation to stem smuggling.
For now, Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms remain free of liability. The high court’s decision leaves unresolved how best to balance U.S. gun manufacturers’ legal protections with Mexico’s urgent calls for relief from cartel violence.
