So many unanimous decisions! At least the three I’ve read.
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Mexico cannot sue American gun companies.
Mexico alleged seven American gun companies “aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels.”
Weird. How come Mexico never sued former President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder!? You know…Operation Fast & Furious.
Mexico based its case on the theory that the seven gun companies did not “exercise ‘reasonable care’ to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico.” Therefore, the country placed the responsibility of the “harms arising there from the weapons’ misuse.”
*cough*Obama*cough*Holder*cough*
Mexico believed its theory fit the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) exception portion, which states someone can sue a manufacturer or seller who “’knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing’ of firearms, and the ‘violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.’”
*cough*Obama*cough*Holder*cough*
The country presented three arguments:
“Because Mexico relies exclusively on an aiding-and-abetting theory, that means plausibly alleging that the manufacturers have aided and abetted gun dealers’ firearms offenses (such as sales to straw purchasers), so as to proximately cause harm to Mexico,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan. “We need not address the proximate cause question, because we find that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers’ part.”
As Kagan notes, “plausibly” is not the same as “probably.” The difference between those in law is the level of certainty or likelihood.
“Plausibly” demands the plaintiff show “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
“We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place—and that the manufacturers know they do,” stated Kagan. “But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers ‘participate in’ those sales ‘as in something that [they] wish[] to bring about,’ and ‘seek by [their] action to make’ succeed.”
Aiding-and-abetting claims set a high burden for plaintiffs.
SCOTUS found that Mexico never had a specific example of where the dealers allegedly participated in criminal action:
It does not say, for example, that a given manufacturer aided a given firearms dealer, at a particular time and place, in selling guns to a given Mexican trafficker not legally permitted to buy them under a specified statute. Instead, the complaint levels a more general accusation: that all the manufacturers assist some number of unidentified rogue gun dealers in making a host of firearms sales in violation of various legal bars. The systemic nature of that charge is not necessarily fatal. But as noted earlier, it cannot help but heighten Mexico’s burden. See supra, at 8. To survive, the charge must be backed by plausible allegations of “pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance.” Twitter, 598 U. S., at 502.
Mexico’s allegations are vague and general in nature. The cases the country relied on had specific names and offenders. Also, Mexico did not provide evidence that the manufacturers “attend to the conduct of individual gun dealers, two levels down.”
SCOTUS also shot down (no pun intended) Mexico’s accusations that the manufacturers have not done enough to regulate practices, such as “bans on bulk sales or sales from homes.”
“Such ‘omissions’ and ‘inactions,’ especially in an already highly regulated industry, are rarely the stuff of aiding-and-abetting liability,” said Kagan. “And nothing special in Mexico’s allegations makes them so. A manufacturer of goods is not an accomplice to every unaffiliated retailer whom it fails to make follow the law.”
This one made me laugh.
SCOTUS also said Mexico didn’t satisfy the burden for its argument over the manufacturers’ “design and marketing decisions.”
Kagan reminded Mexico that guns are available to everyone, even pointing out that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America.
Oh, man: “The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too.”
It gets better:
The same is true of firearms with Spanish-language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history. See supra, at 6. Those guns may be “coveted by the cartels,” as Mexico alleges; but they also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to “millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.” Tr. of Oral Arg 80; Reply Brief 20. That leaves only the allegation that the manufacturers have not attempted to make guns with nondefaceable serial numbers. See supra, at 6. But the failure to improve gun design in that way (which federal law does not require) cannot in the end show that the manufacturers have “join[ed] both mind and hand” with lawbreakers in the way needed to aid and abet. Direct Sales, 319 U. S., at 713.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with a fabulous observation: “Tellingly, that failure [not showing statutory violations] exposes Mexico’s lawsuit as precisely what Congress passed PLCAA to prevent.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY