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

CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.

Issues

When seeking to enforce an international arbitration award in U.S. court, must parties show a sufficient connection with the United States?

This case asks whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Antrix, which is an Indian state-owned corporation, repudiated its contract with Devas, which is a private Indian corporation. Devas argues that federal courts in the United States can exercise personal jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award Devas had won. Antrix counters that because their dispute lacks minimum contact with the United States, federal courts in the United States lack personal jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award. The outcome of this case has significant implications for international relations and post-judgment asset discovery. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Petitioner Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. (“Devas”) is a private Indian corporation. Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. at 3. Respondent Antrix Corp. Ltd. (“Antrix”) is a corporation owned by the Government of India.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman

Issues

Whether the strict standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) always applies to a post-judgment request to vacate in order to file an amended complaint, or if a balancing test can be applied in lieu? 

This case asks the Court to determine whether the strict standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) always applies to a post-judgment request to vacate in order to file an amended complaint, or if a balancing test can be applied instead. Petitioner BLOM Bank SAL argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard must apply to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint, contrary to the Second Circuit’s ruling. Respondent Honickman argues that Rule 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard need not apply to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint, because the Second Circuit’s decision to use a balancing test serves as a better standard to review the Rule. BLOM Bank SAL argues that ruling in favor of Honickman would undermine the finality of judgments by allowing post-judgment amendments under Rule 60(b)(6) too liberally. Honickman counters by arguing that ruling in BLOM Bank SAL’s favor would prevent victims of terrorism from obtaining justice, particularly in cases where new evidence emerges post-judgement.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”) extends liability to people who knowingly provide substantial assistance to or conspire with those responsible for acts of international terrorism. Brief for Petitioner, BLOM Bank SAL,

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas

Issues

Under the Hobbs Act, can someone who wasn’t directly involved in a case challenge a government agency’s decision in court if they believe the agency went beyond its legal power? Second, do the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to temporarily store nuclear fuel away from nuclear-reactor sites? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether parties like Texas can challenge an agency’s decision in court, despite not participating in the agency’s earlier hearing concerning the decision. Texas claims it has standing as an aggrieved party because it only needs to participate even slightly in the original decision-making process, while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) argues Texas misinterprets the law because Texas was required to be a party in the decision-making process, not just a general participant, to be an aggrieved party. The case also asks the Supreme Court to decide if federal laws regulating nuclear energy production allow the NRC to license private companies to store nuclear waste away from the nuclear energy facilities, specifically in the Permian Basin in Texas. Texas argues that federal statutes only empower the NRC to license on-site or federal controlled off-site storage, while the NRC asserts that they have that power because the statutes do not explicitly limit its authority to license temporary, private off-site storage. The outcome of this case has future implications for both nuclear energy expansion, and oil and gas production in the Permian Basin region.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.

In 1942, the first nuclear reactor was created in the United States. Texas v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 3. In 1946, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act, which allowed civilian use of atomic power.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

R. v Brown, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) 2023

The appellant had pleaded guilty to one count of witness intimidation and was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and putting a person in fear of violence by harassment. These were all committed against the woman that the appellant had been in a relationship with. In total, the appellant was given a sentence of five years' imprisonment, which were consecutive sentences of 21 months for the assault, 12 months for the harassment and 27 months for the witness intimidation. The appeal related to the sentence and whether it was excessive.

R. (on the application of GA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) 2021

A mother and her children, who were all British citizens living abroad, sought judicial review of a refusal by HM Passport Office (“HMPO”) to process passport applications for three of the children. The children's father was from "Country X". The mother moved there when they married, and the children were born and habitually reside there. The father was prosecuted for severe domestic violence and abuse of the mother.

女职工劳动保护特别规定 (Special Rules on the Labor Protection of Female Employees 2012)

On April 28, 2012, the State Council of China issued the Special Rules on the Labor Protection of Female Employees (the “Rules”). These Rules aim to reduce and address the difficulties encountered by women at work due to sex-based physical differences and to protect women’s health. The Rules require employers to improve the labor safety facilities and reduce health concerns.

中华人民共和国刑法第二百四十六条 (Article 246 Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China 2020)

Article 246 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020) specifies the penalties for those who publicly insult others, or defame others by fabricating information. In the model cases against cyberviolence and crimes released by the Supreme People’s Court on September 25, 2023, Article 246 was used as the basis for two model cases involving defamation of character and revenge porn.

Subscribe to