Montana AG Celebrates Supreme Court Victory Shielding Gun Manufacturers from Mexico Lawsuit

HELENA, MT — Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen celebrated Thursday’s unanimous Supreme Court decision favoring American gun manufacturers in a high-profile case brought by the Mexican government.

The Supreme Court ruled in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et.al., v. Mexico, rejecting Mexico’s attempt to hold U.S. firearms manufacturers liable for gun violence south of the border. Knudsen had led a 28-state coalition supporting the gun companies throughout the legal proceedings.

“This is a win for gun manufacturers and gun owners across the country,” Knudsen said in a statement. “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act makes it clear – American firearms manufacturers should not and do not have to answer for the actions of criminals. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed.”

The case centered on Mexico’s claim that American gun manufacturers should be held responsible for violence in their country because the companies allegedly knew their products were being illegally trafficked across the border. Mexico argued the manufacturers were contributing to the gun violence crisis plaguing the nation.

However, the Supreme Court sided with the firearms companies, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA). Congress enacted this legislation to balance Americans’ Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns while shielding gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products.

Coalition of 28 States

Knudsen has been actively involved in the case since its early stages, filing amicus briefs supporting the gun manufacturers at nearly every level of court proceedings. In December 2024, he led the broad coalition of predominantly Republican-led states in asking the Supreme Court to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s ruling that had allowed Mexico’s case to proceed.

The coalition included attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, along with the Arizona Legislature.

Legal Arguments

The First Circuit had erroneously adopted a theory of proximate causation already rejected by the Supreme Court in previous cases, according to Knudsen’s coalition brief. Mexico had alleged there was a correlation between American gun manufacturing and Mexican gun violence because companies knew some of their products were unlawfully trafficked into the country.

However, the coalition argued that the proximity cause fails because Mexico’s declaration of war on the cartels caused gun violence in Mexico, the cartels rarely use American retail guns, and the elimination of the American retail gun industry wouldn’t affect the cartels’ access to lethal weapons.

The attorney general framed the decision as protecting American sovereignty and constitutional rights from foreign interference. In his December brief, Knudsen had argued that Mexico should address its gun violence problem through other means rather than targeting American manufacturers.

“If Mexico wants to end its domestic gun problem, it may do so,” Knudsen stated in his original filing. “It could name and report the gun dealers who allegedly sell guns to drug cartels. It could attempt to negotiate with the United States to extradite individuals who trafficked guns to Mexico. It could finish its war with the cartels. It could even close its border with the United States. But it cannot end the domestic manufacturing of American firearms.”

PLCAA Protections

The PLCAA was designed to prevent lawsuits that could potentially bankrupt gun manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their legally manufactured products. The law includes specific exceptions for cases involving defective products, violations of firearms laws, or breach of contract.

Mexico’s case was first dismissed by a federal judge in Massachusetts in 2022. On appeal, the First Circuit wrongly held that Mexico’s claims fell within one of PLCAA’s narrow exceptions, which authorizes suits alleging knowing violations of firearms laws that proximately cause a plaintiff’s injuries. To squeeze Mexico’s case into that narrow exception, the appeals court relied on an expansive view of proximate causation that would have eviscerated PLCAA’s protections.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision reinforces the broad protections the law provides to the firearms industry. Legal experts say the ruling could discourage similar international lawsuits against American gun manufacturers.

International Implications

Mexico’s lawsuit had sought billions in damages from major American firearms companies, claiming their marketing and distribution practices facilitated illegal gun trafficking. The Mexican government argued that approximately 70% of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico were traced back to the United States.

The case had drawn significant attention from Second Amendment advocates and gun control supporters alike. Pro-gun groups argued that holding manufacturers liable for criminal acts would set a dangerous precedent that could extend to other industries.

“That Mexico disagrees with our Nation’s history and tradition of firearm ownership is no consequence to its ability to impose its preferences on the American people via judicial fiat,” the coalition brief stated. “This lawsuit against American gun manufacturers recycles the failed, anti-gun lawfare tactics already rejected by Congress. Mexico’s legal theories have no basis in law or fact.”

Knudsen’s involvement in the case aligns with his office’s broader efforts to defend gun rights and challenge what he views as federal overreach. The Montana attorney general has consistently positioned himself as a defender of Second Amendment rights throughout his tenure.

The decision marks a significant victory for the firearms industry, which has faced increasing legal challenges in recent years. Gun manufacturers can now point to the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling as strong precedent protecting them from similar international lawsuits.