Smith & Wesson argues before U.S. Supreme Court that PLCAA precludes Mexico's suit against U.S. firearm manufacturers
Client(s) Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.
On behalf of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., Jones Day presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court against a far-reaching suit brought by the government of Mexico, which seeks to hold U.S. firearm manufacturers and distributors liable for gun violence perpetrated in Mexico by Mexican drug cartels. This unprecedented action turns on fundamental issues of proximate cause, and aiding-and-abetting liability—whether (and if so, when) the upstream producer of a lawful product can be held responsible for the criminal misuse of that product far downstream.
In September 2022, the District of Massachusetts dismissed the complaint, agreeing with Smith & Wesson that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ("PLCAA") bars suits attempting to hold firearm manufacturers liable for harms stemming from unlawful acts by a third party. The First Circuit reversed, citing a narrow exception to PLCAA allowing suits alleging knowing violations of firearms laws that proximately cause a plaintiff's injuries. At the Supreme Court, Jones Day argued that long-settled principles dictate that proximate cause requires a direct connection between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct. Mexico's case—which seeks to make firearm manufacturers liable for the independent acts of third-party criminals—does not meet that bar.
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141 (U.S.)
