News / FJP Releases

FJP Denounces Gun Manufacturers’ Immunity Claims for Selling Arms to Mexican Drug Cartels in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico

The Supreme Court should affirm the First Circuit’s decision to protect “ordinary and longstanding conceptions of aiding and abetting liability.” Ruling in favor of gun manufacturer immunity claims “would create the appearance of a major loophole in which powerful organizations are immune from accountability.”

Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging gun manufacturers’ legal immunity claims in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The case brought by the Mexican government alleges that American gun manufacturers provided “knowing and substantial assistance” to gun dealers flagged by the federal government for engaging in bulk gun sales to Mexican drug cartels. 

Following the First Circuit’s refusal to dismiss Mexico’s case, the gun manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that they are exempt from all liability for aiding and abetting drug cartels’ illegal activities because these sales amount to “routine business practices” that are protected under U.S. law. In its brief, FJP noted that this legal argument – if successful – would upset “textbook theories of aiding and abetting liability,” undercutting criminal and civil prosecutions for similar crimes across the country.

“Since 2006, drug cartels have murdered more than 430,000 people in Mexico, yet American gun manufacturers continue to supply these dangerous criminal organizations with the weapons they need to kill any teacher, student, journalist, or politician who dares to stand against their reign of terror,” said FJP Acting Co-Executive Director Amy Fettig. “The Court has a legal and moral obligation to reject gun manufacturers’ ludicrous legal arguments, which would undermine both public safety and Americans’ trust in the criminal legal system.”

In its brief, FJP notes that the gun manufacturers have admitted to knowingly selling their guns to dealers directly tied to Mexican drug cartels, even adopting marketing strategies designed to appeal directly to the cartels in order to boost sales to these dangerous criminal organizations. The gun manufacturer’s legal theory could easily apply to cases not involving weapons, with FJP noting that pharmaceutical companies that provide opioids to pharmacies known to participate in illicit drug trafficking could claim a similar form of blanket immunity should the Court side with plaintiffs in this case. 

FJP also noted that an adverse ruling from the Court could be used as a justification for other American businesses to adopt similar practices, potentially opening the door to American banks or weapons manufacturers claiming similar blanket immunity for aiding and abetting other illicit activities, such as foreign or domestic terrorism. A legal standard that eliminates the ability to hold powerful interests accountable for the harms that their products cause will erode trust in the criminal legal system and make communities less safe, which is why FJP is calling on the Court to affirm the First Circuit’s decision to allow Mexico’s case to proceed.

More FJP Releases

Older

FJP Applauds President Biden on Historic Commutations for 2,500 People Convicted of Nonviolent Drug Offenses

Newer

Fair and Just Prosecution Condemns House Passage of the HALT Fentanyl Act