Skip to main content

TRAFFICKING

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Issues

Can the Mexican government hold U.S. firearm manufacturers legally responsible for cartel violence injuries in Mexico based on claims of proximate cause and of aiding and abetting illegal trafficking?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Mexican government has sufficiently justified its lawsuit against U.S. firearm manufacturers based on Mexican cartel violence. Smith & Wesson argues that proximate cause necessitates a direct cause, and that Mexico’s injuries are too attenuated to satisfy proximate cause. The Mexican government claims that Smith & Wesson can be held liable for aiding and abetting illegal firearm sales under the predicate exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The outcome of this case has significant implications for corporate liability under tort law and the legal standard of plausibility pleading. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.

Despite Mexico’s strict firearm laws, Mexico has the third-most firearm-related deaths in the world. Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. (“First Circuit”) at 516. From 2003 to 2019, the number of firearm deaths increased from 2,500 to 23,000. Id. The increase in firearm-related violence in Mexico coincided with a growth in firearm production in the United States.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Heise for his insights into this case. 

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to TRAFFICKING