Judge Sonia Sotomayor suggested that Mexico has not done enough to show that cancer makers have taken positive actions to cause fraud.
The US Supreme Court appears to be skeptical of the Mexican debate on March 4th, and that gun manufacturers should face responsibility for the violence committed by the cartel.
Several judicial officers asked questions that the Mexican lawsuit lacked information to alleging some of the gun companies’ misconduct.
Samuel Alito and Amy Connie Barrett of Justice asked whether Mexico could name a red flag dealer who is allegedly part of the gun stream for illegal purposes.
“You haven’t identified them that I can know from the complaints,” Barrett told a Mexican lawyer. Justice Elena Kagan likewise told Mexican lawyers that her side did not name any particular dealers.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh asked Mexican lawyers about the economic consequences of the theory of liability. “That’s a real concern for me,” he said.
The case, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexiconos, came from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which last year ruled that members of the US firearms industry could face lawsuits under the protection of the Legal Commercial Act (PLCAA).
Related Stories
The law generally protects firearms companies from lawsuits based on offenders misusing their products, but includes an exception that stated that the first circuit was met in this case. More specifically, the law allows a company to face a lawsuit if it knowingly violates state or federal law and the violation is a close cause of the harm it was given.
It added that “the spending of Mexican government funds to receive the cartel is a foreseeable and direct result of dealers selling guns to buyers with illegal intent.”
At one point, Judge Sonia Sotomayor suggested that Mexico was not doing enough to show that gun companies had taken any positive action to participate in a scheme to promote fraud.
After Sotomayor traded for a Mexican lawyer, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson told his lawyer he thought a case like Mexico was needed to do more to show that he was in violation of the law.
Similarly, Judge Clarence Thomas appears to have expressed concern that the case did not show a violation of any particular law. He also asked if Mexico encounters any legitimate process issues when claiming a violation of federal law by a particular individual if it is not charged with its violation with the Bureau of Alcohol, cigarettes, firearms or explosives.
Jackson also appeared worried that Mexican debate would invite unfair judicial intervention.
“Everything you were asking in this case is a variety of regulatory constraints that Congress doesn’t want to impose on the court,” she said.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
