Smith Professor Hillel Y. Levin offers insights on the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos: “I urge the U.S. Supreme Court not to adopt the defendants’ interpretation of proximate cause as it would radically redefine this concept. Doing so would have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences and could potentially make it impossible to hold industries accountable for their harms caused by their products.”
University of Georgia School of Law Smith Professor Hillel Y. Levin is available for further commentary at hlevin@uga.edu. He was a lead coauthor of a scholars' amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The brief aims to guide the Supreme Court in properly understanding and applying the concept of proximate cause.
Additional information regarding Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos provided by Levin:
Note: The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in this case on 3/4/25.
Please describe the case.
In this landmark lawsuit, the Mexican government claims that the firearms manufacturers' distribution practices constitute "aiding and abetting" the unlawful downstream diversion of their products to the black market, and specifically into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels. Specifically, Mexico alleges that the manufacturers distribute their products to sellers whom they know to engage in such unlawful diversion. Mexico claims that these distribution practices are a proximate cause of firearms violence in Mexico. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the case could proceed. The defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What are the primary issues in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos?
The Supreme Court will consider two issues. First, whether Mexico's allegations would, if proven, constitute aiding and abetting. Second, whether the firearms manufacturers' conduct could, if proven, be considered a proximate cause of firearms violence in Mexico. If the Supreme Court agrees with the defendants on either of these issues, then the case will be dismissed.
What are the implications of the case? Why do they matter?
The case has enormous potential implications, but understanding why requires some context. Since the 1980s and 1990s, victims of firearms violence and local governments in the United States have sued firearms manufacturers and sellers to hold them accountable for unlawful violence committed with their products. In some ways, the theories of these cases were similar to those that formed the basis for lawsuits against the tobacco and opioid industries.
However, in 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ("PLCAA"), which immunized the firearms industry--unlike any other industry--for damages caused by its products. Since PLCAA's enactment, the vast majority of these cases have been dismissed, and there have been no jury awards against the firearms industry for the criminal misuse of firearms products.
However, PLCAA's "predicate exception" allows firearms manufacturers and sellers to be sued if they knowingly violate a state or local statute (a "predicate statute") applicable to the sale or marketing of a firearm and that violation is a proximate cause of the harm committed by unlawful misuse of a firearm product. Mexico claims that Smith & Wesson's violation of the aiding and abetting statute is a proximate cause of cartel violence in Mexico.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Mexico, then it could open the door for many more lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and sellers.
On the other hand, if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the defendants, it could--depending on the breadth of the holding--firmly close the door to such lawsuits. Moreover, if the Supreme Court adopts the defendants' arguments on the proximate cause question, it could--again, depending on the breadth of the reasoning--have far reaching and negative consequences for lawsuits against other industries for the harms caused by their products (including social media companies, plastics manufacturers and sellers, and fossil fuel companies, all of which are currently facing lawsuits from private plaintiffs and state and local governments).
Potential Ruling/Outcome
A scholars' amicus brief in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (of which Levin is a lead co-author) aims to guide the U.S. Supreme Court in properly interpreting and applying PLCAA's predicate exception and common law principles of proximate causation. Specifically, the brief argues that the defendants misconstrue the meaning of "proximate cause" in the predicate exception and under common law. It urges the Supreme Court to not adopt an interpretation that would radically redefine this concept.