The Supreme Court Unanimously Tells Mexico to Get Lost

[jdege]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2025/06/05/mexico-suffers-major-loss-at-the-supreme-court-n2658246
The Supreme Court Unanimously Tells Mexico to Get Lost

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 Thursday that the government of Mexico cannot hold American gun manufacturers accountable for criminal activity. More specifically, cartel violence south of the border.

"The Government of Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels," the order states. "Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns. The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history—while they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.' Even the failure to make guns with non-defaceable serial numbers cannot show that manufacturers have 'joined both mind and hand' with lawbreakers in the manner required for aiding and abetting."

"Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA [The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] bars the lawsuit," it continues. "Congress enacted PLCAA to halt lawsuits attempting to make gun manufacturers pay for harms resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms. Mexico’s suit closely resembles those lawsuits. The Court doubts Congress intended to draft such a capacious way out of PLCAA, and in fact it did not."

[Lumpy]

But hey, the standard of progressivism is "if the result is exactly the same as if it were done on purpose, then as far as we're concerned it is on purpose. Outcome-based reality"

Glad to see we have a Supreme Court that believes in that old-fashioned concept called personal responsibility.

[jdege]

The Worst Part of the Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Blocking a Lawsuit Against Gunmakers

On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government of Mexico may not continue its lawsuit seeking to hold firearms manufacturers and a firearms distributor civilly accountable for their role in causing cartel-driven gun violence in Mexico. Having taken the case at an unusually early stage in the litigation, and so working from an undeveloped factual record, all nine justices agreed that Mexico’s current complaint does not even satisfactorily allege that the defendants have aided and abetted U.S. dealers who illegally sell guns to traffickers who then get them to the cartels in Mexico.

What’s worse, Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each wrote separate concurrences in which they wade into the substantive law of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, offering unprecedented interpretations that would make it harder for victims of gun violence to try to hold firearms-makers and sellers responsible for their part in the harms they cause. All in all, Thursday’s intervention from the Supreme Court means expanded impunity for the firearms industry—and thus the likelihood of more death and injury due to gun violence.

[...]

Thomas wrote to cast doubt on whether PLCAA’s reference to knowing violations of federal or state statutes includes violations that have not been formally found by a court or other regulatory body. No lower court that I know of has adopted this position. Indeed, no lower court opinions have even discussed the question. Yet Thomas took the opportunity to alert the firearms industry that “it seems to [him] that the PLCAA at least arguably requires not only a plausible allegation that a defendant has committed a predicate violation, but also an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the ‘violation.’ ” He doesn’t provide even a hint of an argument that the words of PLCAA support his impression. Thomas instead vaguely gestures to “serious constitutional considerations” that would support his view.

[Lumpy]

Note that the above was posted on Slate.com as a an anti-gun diatribe.

What it seems to come down to is that gun control proponents who want to be able to sue gun manufacturers are attempting to claim that the very existence of a commercial gun industry meets the technical legal definition of a Public Nuisance: something so onerous to the public welfare that it deserves to be sued out of business. The courts have rightfully rejected that legal interpretation.