Editorial | Disappointing US ruling

This newspaper is deeply disappointed over the US Supreme Court’s ruling against Mexico’s attempt to hold America’s gun manufacturers accountable for the use of their weapons by Mexican drug cartels.

But while the court has closed off, or made it extremely harder, the use of existing law to bring cases against the gun companies, this shouldn’t be the end of efforts at training the spotlight on them, and placing a greater obligation for how their products are marketed, sold and used.

In that regard, Caribbean countries, which filed amicus curiae briefs in an earlier version of Mexico’s case, should coordinate with Mexico in lobbying Congress for amendments to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), while vigorously urging the United States to be more robust in preventing the flow of weapons to the region.

The case on which the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday goes back to 2021. The Mexican government sued a slew of American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson and Glock Inc, plus one distributor, claiming that they shared responsibility with the country’s drug cartels, for thousands of gun deaths. Mexico, which estimated that more than two per cent of the 40 million guns manufactured in the US annually reached south of the border illegally, sought US$10 billion in damages.

Mexico had argued that in many cases gun designs, as well as how they were marketed, were tailored to appeal to the cartels.

COULD NOT OVERCOME

However, in a ruling in late 2022, federal judge F Dennis Saylor, held that that Mexican suit could not overcome the provisions of the PLCAA that bars cases against gun manufacturers for the use of their products. While the law provided narrow exceptions to this principle, none applied in Mexico’s case, Judge Saylor ruled.

“While the court has considerable sympathy for the people of Mexico, and none whatsoever for those who traffic guns to Mexican criminal organisations, it is duty-bound to follow the law,” the judge wrote.

Mexico appealed and the First Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case, saying that it could proceed under the exceptions allowed by PLCAA.

In the new matter Judge Saylor dismissed the case against six of the eight companies that Mexico initially sued, saying that none was incorporated in Massachusetts, where the matter was filed, and that Mexico hadn’t shown that any firearms sold in Massachusetts caused it harm.

APPEALED

Two of the companies, Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the First Circuit Court’s ruling had misinterpreted PLCAA and that Mexico’s claims were invalid under the law. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed.

Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the court’s opinion, said Mexico’s lawsuit closely resembled what Congress had in mind when, in the face of a flurry of complaints, it sought to protect gun manufacturers from liability “for the downstream harms resulting from misuse of their products”.

Jamaica and other Caribbean countries, whose high crime rates are exacerbated by the illegal flow of American-made guns into their territories, have a significant interest in this matter.

We feel that there ought to be a way to force gun manufacturers to greater accountability for the use of their products, including demanding strict regimes around design, safety, marketing and sales.

The region should continue to lobby Congress on these issues and other areas of domestic gun control. Caribbean governments must also engage the Trump administration on an enhanced partnership in gun control, especially the movement of weapons out of the United States.

The Americans should be aware that safety in Caribbean countries is also border security for the United States.