On Tuesday, the United States House of Representatives told the Supreme

On Tuesday, the United States House of Representatives told the Supreme
Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that siding with Mexico in its
liability suit against American gun makers would violate the separation
of powers.

In an amicus brief, the House argued federal regulation of the gun
industry is squarely within its purview. It said granting the relief
sought by Mexico in its battle with Smith & Wesson, which aims to hold
the American gun industry liable for Mexican cartel violence, would be
tantamount to SCOTUS usurping new powers for the federal courts. The
House urged the Court to reverse the lower court holding and dismiss
the case as incompatible with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms
Act (PLCAA).

“Indeed, the Mexican government’s suit here urges the lower court to
impose all sorts of far-reaching regulations on the firearms industry,
restrictions that Congress itself has considered and declined to
adopt,” lawyers with the House Office of General Counsel [1]wrote in
Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. “This suit thus attempts to use the Judicial
Branch to seize legislative power.”

The House’s intervention provides backup to Smith & Wesson’s defense.
It also brings in a new argument outside of those previously employed
by the gunmakers in the case. While they had zeroed in on the lengthy
chain of actors and actions between Mexico’s claimed harms and the
American gun industry’s acts as well as the potential for the country’s
proposed remedies to infringe on Second Amendment guarantees, the House
is the first to raise separation of powers concerns with a potential
ruling in Mexico’s favor.

Smith & Wesson asked SCOTUS to intervene after [2]a three-judge panel
on the First Circuit Court of Appeals gave the $10 billion civil
liability suit the go-ahead. They did so after reversing a lower
court’s [3]ruling that the PLCAA blocked Mexico’s claims. The panel
argued Mexico’s suit could take advantage of one of the carveouts
Congress included in the PLCAA’s liability shield.

“We agree that the PLCAA’s limitations on the types of lawsuits that
may be maintained in the United States apply to lawsuits initiated by
foreign governments for harm suffered outside the United States,” Judge
William J. Kayatta [4]wrote. “However, we also hold that Mexico’s
complaint plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt
from the PLCAA’s general prohibition.”

Judge Kayatta, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled the argument that
American gun makers are “aiding and abetting” illegal firearm sales
into Mexico is allowed despite the law.

“Fairly read, the complaint alleges that defendants are aware of the
significant demand for their guns among the Mexican drug cartels, that
they can identify which of their dealers are responsible for the
illegal sales that give the cartels the guns, and that they know the
unlawful sales practices those dealers engage in to get the guns to the
cartels,” he wrote. “It is therefore not implausible that, as the
complaint alleges, defendants engage in all this conduct in order to
maintain the unlawful market in Mexico, and not merely in spite of it.”

In its petition for SCOTUS to hear the case, Smith & Wesson argued the
ruling “brazenly defies” established precedent and “threatens severe
consequences.”

“Absent this Court’s intervention, Mexico’s multi-billion-dollar suit
will hang over the American firearms industry for years, inflicting
costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that
is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control
measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters,” the
company [5]wrote. “Worse, so long as the decision below remains good
law, scores of similar suits are destined to follow from other
governments, both foreign and domestic—all seeking to distract from
their own political failings by laying the blame for criminal violence
at the feet of the American firearms industry.”

In October, the Supreme Court [6]agreed to hear the case. Now, after a
party-line vote among leaders, the House has decided to take a position
on the dispute.

It looked at the remedies Mexico has proposed as part of its claims
against American gun makers. Those included ending the sale of certain
semi-automatic firearms, such as the popular AR-15, and the magazines
that often come standard with them, requiring the integration of
biometric or other locking technologies into all guns, and using
industry influence to try and mandate background checks on private gun
sales. The House noted Congress has long debated adopting all of those
policies and argued it has the sole purview over whether they ought to
be mandated by the government.

“This ruse violates the separation of powers: the legislative power
that would be effectively exercised here is vested in Congress, not
courts,” the House brief said. “At bottom, a foreign government is
asking the Judicial Branch to impose firearms restrictions that, so
far, Congress has specifically elected not to adopt.”

Ultimately, the House said SCOTUS should dismiss Mexico’s suit and
leave gun policy up to Congress.

“As all these examples show, if affirmed, the decision below would
short-circuit the legislative process and usurp Congressional
authority,” the brief said. “The Constitution assigns firearms-related
policy decisions to the American people’s elected representatives,
subject to the constraints of the Second Amendment. The Mexican
government’s radical request for injunctive relief would instead allow
federal courts to make those important decisions. Such a result would
turn our constitutional structure on its head, and the Court should not
permit it.”

The Supreme Court has [7]scheduled oral arguments in the case for March
4th, 2025.

UPDATE 12-3-2024 4:19 PM EASTERN: This piece has been corrected with
the date of oral arguments in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico.

References

1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1141/333172/20241203130818675_Wesson Amicus Br. - 23-1141tsacUSHouseOfRepresentatives.pdf
2. https://thereload.com/appeals-court-revives-mexicos-lawsuit-against-us-gunmakers/
3. https://thereload.com/federal-court-tosses-mexicos-suit-against-u-s-gun-makers/
4. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5472/attachments/original/1705959095/Mexico_v_Smith___Wesson_Opinion.pdf?1705959095
5. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1141/307919/20240418143513080_S_W Cert Petition.pdf
6. https://thereload.com/scotus-agrees-to-hear-smith-wesson-fight-with-mexico/
7. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalFebruary2025.pdf