Supreme Court Very Skeptical That Drug Cartel Violence Is Caused by US Gun Manufacturers and Retailers

streiff reporting for RedState 

The Mexican government had a rough day in the Supreme Court yesterday as the justices seemed unanimous in their opinion that its effort to blame US gun manufacturers for drug cartel violence was way off base. The dispute originated in Mexico's suing seven major U.S. gun makers and one gun wholesaler for billions of dollars in damages caused by the gun violence in Mexico's drug trade. Mexico is also demanding changes in the way guns are sold in the United States so Mexican narcotrafficantes can't acquire them. None of this is to say that Mexico doesn't have a gun violence, or more accurately, a rule-of-law problem. Mexico has one gun store but has a firearm homicide rate of 16.87 per 100,000. The US has nearly 78,000 licensed gun sellers and a firearm homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000. So the problem isn't access to guns. See Mexico's Lawsuit Against American Gun Companies to Face US Supreme Court – RedState for more history of this case.

The case was very significant for two reasons. It is the first major test of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that largely indemnifies gun manufacturers and resellers from lawsuits as long as they follow applicable laws and regulations. If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the immunity claims in this case, American gun rights will disappear because manufacturers and firearms dealers will be sued into oblivion. The second reason the case is important is that Mexico's theory could be applied to any product that has the potential to be misused. Liquor distillers could be held liable for drunk-driving deaths.

The oral arguments were ugly.

Justice Alito seemed to be having too much fun.

Justice Samuel Alito asked how Mexico would feel about a U.S. state bringing a lawsuit accusing Mexico of aiding and abetting illegal conduct inside the U.S., in an effort to recoup tax dollars spent on law enforcement and public welfare. “Would your client be willing to litigate that case in the United States?” he asked Stetson.

“I can’t, and certainly, you know, don’t feel comfortable giving away things like sovereign immunity on behalf of the government of Mexico,” she responded.

“So the argument basically is, it’s a one-way street.” Alito said.

“I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to call it a one-way street,” said Stetson.

Even the contender for the dimmest bulb on the Supreme Court got it right.

In one notable exchange, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — one of the most left-leaning justices on the bench — repeatedly pressed the Mexican government’s attorney, Catherine Stetson, about whether PLCAA was intended to bar lawsuits like Mexico’s.

“I worry that we’re running up against the very concerns that motivated this statute to begin with,” Jackson said at one point. “All of the things that you ask for in this lawsuit would amount to different kinds of regulatory constraints that I’m thinking Congress didn’t want the courts to be the ones to impose.”

If she concedes that Congress wants to regulate the firearms industry, other cases pushed by leftist attorneys general are unlikely to get much traction.

As always, it is folly to predict how the justices will vote on any case based on oral arguments. That said, Mexico can count this as a victory if it gets a single vote.