Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 23-1141Jun 5, 2025CommerceReversed

The question

Whether Mexico's complaint plausibly alleges that firearms manufacturers aided and abetted unlawful gun sales to traffickers so as to trigger PLCAA's predicate exception and permit the suit to proceed.

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

What the Court decided

The Court reversed and held that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bars Mexico's lawsuit against the gun manufacturers. Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, so the predicate exception to PLCAA's general bar does not apply. Aiding and abetting requires an affirmative act intended to facilitate the offense, and an ordinary merchant does not become liable simply by knowing that some fraction of its goods will be misused.

How the justices split

Unanimous
In favor 9
Kagan
Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Sotomayor
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson

The Court's opinion

Kagan, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

Delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. PLCAA bars qualified civil liability actions against firearms manufacturers and sellers stemming from a third party's criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm, subject to a predicate exception for knowing violations of a statute applicable to firearms sale or marketing that proximately caused the harm. Aiding and abetting can supply the predicate violation, but it requires an affirmative act intended to facilitate the offense, and it usually turns on specific wrongful acts rather than a general category of misconduct. An ordinary merchant does not become liable for criminal misuse of its goods simply by knowing that misuse will occur in some fraction of cases. Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the manufacturers aided and abetted dealers' unlawful sales, so PLCAA bars the suit.

Concurring

Thomas, writing alone

Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state its content beyond identifying it as a concurrence.

Concurring

Jackson, writing alone

Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state its content beyond identifying it as a concurrence.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that PLCAA bars Mexico's lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Thomas and Jackson each filed concurring opinions.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • PLCAA's predicate exception applies when a manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a statute applicable to firearms sale or marketing and the violation proximately caused the harm.

    Source: syllabus, Held

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov