Lawfare Daily: Mexican Cartels and American Guns

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast: Mexican Cartels and American Guns – Episode Summary

Release Date: April 16, 2025

---

1. Introduction

In this compelling episode of The Lawfare Podcast, host Natalie Orpet engages with Jonathan Loewy, an attorney at Global Action on Gun Violence, and Chantal Flores, a journalist specializing in cartel violence in Mexico. The discussion centers on the landmark lawsuit Mexico v. Smith & Wesson, where the Mexican government has sued major U.S. gun manufacturers for their role in fueling cartel violence through the illegal trafficking of American firearms into Mexico.

---

2. Background on Mexico's Gun Laws and Cartel Violence

Jonathan Loewy provides a detailed backdrop, highlighting Mexico's stringent gun laws, which allow only one to two gun stores nationwide. Despite these restrictions, Mexico grapples with some of the highest rates of gun violence globally. The core issue lies in the "iron river"—a massive influx of U.S.-manufactured guns illegally smuggled into Mexico, primarily empowering powerful and violent drug cartels.

[04:18] Jonathan Loewy: "Mexico suffers from some of the highest gun violence rates in the world... all of that would happen if you didn't have this flood of guns coming from the U.S."

The 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre, where a gunman used U.S. firearms to kill 23 people, served as a catalyst for Mexico to take legal action against American gun manufacturers.

---

3. The Lawsuit: Mexico v. Smith & Wesson

Natalie Orpet introduces the case, emphasizing its unprecedented nature—it's rare for a sovereign nation to sue private companies in this manner. Jonathan Loewy, representing Mexico, explains that the lawsuit targets gun manufacturers who, knowingly or negligently, supply firearms that end up in the hands of Mexican cartels.

[01:36] Jonathan Loewy: "Manufacturers knowingly violate gun laws by deliberately supplying gun dealers and gun sales practices that they know are illegal and supply traffickers for the cartels and cause harm to Mexico."

---

4. Legal Framework and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

A significant hurdle for Mexico is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a U.S. federal law that typically shields gun manufacturers and dealers from civil liability. However, Mexico's legal team argues that the manufacturers' actions fall under the predicate exception of PLCAA, which excludes liability if the manufacturers knowingly violate laws contributing to harm.

[10:43] Jonathan Loewy: "Mexico claimed... that manufacturers knowingly violate gun laws by deliberately supplying gun dealers and gun sales practices that they know are illegal and supply traffickers for the cartels and cause harm to Mexico."

The core allegation is that gun manufacturers aided and abetted the violation of federal gun laws by supporting dealers who engage in straw purchasing and trafficking.

---

5. Case Progression and Court Decisions

The lawsuit faced immediate challenges in the U.S. judicial system:

• District Court: The case was initially dismissed, with the court ruling that PLCAA barred Mexico's claims.

  [33:11] Natalie Orpet: "The district judge granted the motion to dismiss and held that Mexico's case was barred by PLCAA."

• First Circuit Court of Appeals: Contrarily reversed the dismissal, acknowledging that the predicate exception could apply to Mexico's claims.

  [33:49] Jonathan Loewy: "The First Circuit held that Mexico's case does come under the predicate exception."

• Supreme Court: The defendants petitioned for Supreme Court review, citing a non-existent circuit split. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, potentially setting a pivotal precedent.

  [37:23] Jonathan Loewy: "The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court to review... their question presented was... can aiding and abetting be a proximate cause of harm?"

---

6. Perspectives from Mexico

Chantal Flores offers an on-the-ground perspective from Mexico, detailing the pervasive influence of cartels beyond just drug trafficking. These organizations are deeply entrenched in various illicit activities, heavily armed with U.S. firearms, leading to widespread violence and societal disruption.

[07:44] Chantal Flores: "Mexican cartels are transnational criminal organizations... tens of thousands of homicides and disappearances."

She also comments on the Mexican public's reaction to the lawsuit, noting a mix of nationalism and skepticism regarding its potential success.

[19:19] Chantal Flores: "People of Mexico welcome the lawsuit, but I don't think we see it as something that Mexico can win."

Moreover, Flores emphasizes that while the lawsuit raises awareness about the U.S. gun industry's role in cartel violence, broader systemic issues within Mexico, such as government corruption, still need to be addressed.

---

7. Implications and Future Prospects

Jonathan Loewy underscores that regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, the lawsuit has significantly heightened international awareness about the illicit flow of U.S. guns into Mexico and beyond. He envisions the case as a starting point for a global effort to hold the U.S. gun industry accountable, potentially influencing policies and reducing gun violence domestically and internationally.

[45:04] Jonathan Loewy: "Mexico has already won a great deal just by bringing this case and explaining to the rest of the world... this is a start to a global effort to address this global crisis of US Gun policy."

On the other hand, Chantal Flores remains cautiously pessimistic about Mexico's chances in the lawsuit but acknowledges its importance in spotlighting the issue. She calls for Mexico to simultaneously tackle internal challenges, such as government accountability and corruption, to effectively address cartel violence.

[51:14] Chantal Flores: "This lawsuit has raised awareness... but it's another fight to separate the cartels from Mexican society and from Mexican government."

---

Conclusion

The Lawfare Podcast episode on Mexican Cartels and American Guns delves deep into the complexities of international gun trafficking, legal battles, and the broader socio-political ramifications. Through expert insights and on-the-ground perspectives, the discussion highlights the intertwined nature of U.S. gun policies and Mexico's enduring struggle with cartel-inflicted violence. The outcome of Mexico v. Smith & Wesson stands to be a landmark case with far-reaching implications for global gun regulation and accountability.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Jonathan Loewy [04:18]: "Mexico suffers from some of the highest gun violence rates in the world... all of that would happen if you didn't have this flood of guns coming from the U.S."

• Chantal Flores [07:44]: "Mexican cartels are transnational criminal organizations... tens of thousands of homicides and disappearances."

• Jonathan Loewy [10:43]: "Mexico claimed... that manufacturers knowingly violate gun laws by deliberately supplying gun dealers... and cause harm to Mexico."

• Chantal Flores [19:19]: "People of Mexico welcome the lawsuit, but I don't think we see it as something that Mexico can win."

• Jonathan Loewy [45:04]: "Mexico has already won a great deal just by bringing this case and explaining to the rest of the world... this is a start to a global effort to address this global crisis of US Gun policy."

• Chantal Flores [51:14]: "This lawsuit has raised awareness... but it's another fight to separate the cartels from Mexican society and from Mexican government."

---

This summary encapsulates the episode's critical discussions, offering a comprehensive overview for listeners and those interested in the intersection of international law, gun policy, and transnational crime.

Transcript

[Jonathan Loewy]

The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of [e-mail] lawfare that's patreon.com lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings. Rational Security Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull and the Aftermath.

[Natalie Orpet]

It's a cold day here in Alaska, but there's one animal seemingly unaffected, bright eyed and determined enters the husky. Observe as they go up the mountain, guided by pure instinct. They are truly amazing masters of this wilderness. But even these amazing pets can't sign up for Lemonade Pet Insurance. You can sign up [e-mail] Amazing. If you wear glasses, you know how hard it is to find the perfect pair. But step into a Warby Parker store and you'll see it doesn't have to be. Not only will you find a great selection of frames, you'll also meet helpful advisors and friendly optometrists. Yep, many Warby Parker locations also offer eye exams. So the next time you need glasses, sun, sunglasses, contact lenses or a new prescription, you know where to look. To find a Warby Parker store near you or to book an eye exam, head over to warbyparker.com retail.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Manufacturers knowingly violate gun laws by deliberately supplying gun dealers and gun sales practices that they know are illegal and supply traffickers for the cartels and cause harm to Mexico.

[Natalie Orpet]

It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Natalie Orpet, executive editor of Lawfare, with Jonathan Loewy, an attorney at Global Action on Gun Violence, and Chantal Flores, a journalist who has focused on cartel violence in Mexico.

[Chantal Flores]

It's hard for me to believe that that Mexico will win this, but I think there's a lot to do after this lawsuit. Right? It opens a space for further discussion on how to keep the US Gun industry accountable.

[Natalie Orpet]

Today we're talking about Mexico v. Smith and Wesson, a lawsuit that the Mexican government has brought against US Gun manufacturers. We talk about the flow of U S made guns into Mexico, how it relates to cartel violence, and the complicated legal and policy context around Mexico's case. Okay, so John and Chantal, I have asked you on today to talk about a really interesting case that was recently argued in the Supreme Court that we've been tracking here at Lawfare for a little while and to really understand what's happened in this very unusual case and also the broader implications and the context. Context in which it arises. And the case is, I'm going to anglicize it, Mexico vs. Smith & Wesson. It is a lawsuit brought by the state of Mexico against a variety of US Gun manufacturers. And they are bringing it to argue that the gun manufacturers have some liability in connection with cartel violence in Mexico that is perpetrated with US Guns that are smuggled primarily from the United States. So, John, you are, of course, an attorney for Mexico in this case, and I would love for you to start us off by explaining how the case came about. It's, as we said, a very unusual case to bring against gun manufacturers who are notoriously protected by US Law. And I think it's pretty unusual for a country to decide to bring a suit against private companies in this manner. So talk to us about how the case came about and how it got to your organization.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Sure. And it's my pleasure to be here to discuss it. I mean, Mexico has a very unusual situation, which is that they have very strong gun laws. There's one to two gun stores in the entire country. So it's very difficult for criminals to get guns in Mexico, but they suffer from some of the highest gun violence rates in the world. And, of course, the cartels in Mexico are heavily armed and engage in tremendous violence and criminal activity as a result of the fact that they have such arms and they can do battle with Mexican law enforcement and even the military. And the reason Mexico has this problem is because there is a massive flood of hundreds of thousands of guns that are illegally trafficked from the United States across the border into Mexico. And that is a result of the deliberate practices of gun manufacturers and gun dealers in the United States. And so Mexico wanted to do something about this problem that's been going on for years. And what really brought it to a head, Interestingly, was the August 2019 massacre at the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, on this side of the border, where a man went into Walmart with the intention of killing as many Mexicans as possible, first at the Walmart, and then he wanted to go across the border, and he ultimately killed 23 people, wounded 22 others, many of them Mexicans or Mexican Americans. And that brought to a head in the Mexican government a feeling that they needed to do something to address this gun problem in the US that was affecting Mexicans. And they reached out to me because I've been a lawyer litigating cases against gun manufacturers and dealers for, at that point, about 25 years. Now it's over 27 years. And ultimately, we came about with the lawsuit to sue major gun manufacturers, basically so Mexico could address the source of this huge problem that was facing it. So it was not the problem that faced Mexicans at the. At the Walmart. But it's the much bigger problem that faces Mexico every day, which is called the iron river of guns supplying the cartels.

[Natalie Orpet]

Great, thank you. That's really helpful. And Chantal, I'd love to hear from you now to give us an additional sense of what things look like on the ground in Mexico. You're a journalist who has been covering all of these issues, and I think you bring some really unique insight into the nature of cartel violence, the effect of these guns coming into Mexico from the United States, and what that all looks like from the Mexican perspective. So can you tell us about that?

[Chantal Flores]

Sure. Well, first of all, we have to understand that Mexican cartels are not just drug trafficking organizations. They are transnational criminal organizations with incredible power and control over many territories across Mexico. They generate billions of dollars each year through drug trafficking, kidnapping, human trafficking, illegal mining, and more. Right. They keep diversifying, and this economic power allows them to corrupt officials at all levels of government and sustain and protect their operations across the country. They are in constant dispute with other groups over the control of territories and key routes, especially those that connect with the United States. And this has resulted in tens of thousands of homicides and disappearances. A significant portion of the weapons used by Mexican cartels come from the United States. Most of the firearms recover at crime scenes. I think is 77.0% of the firearms recovered at crime scenes in Mexico were trafficked from the United States. So we have a very long list of violent acts, including massacres committed with US Made weapons. So this flow of weapons, the iron river, as John just mentioned, fuels the cartel's firepower and contributes to this violence.

[Natalie Orpet]

Okay, So, I mean, this is a huge problem. And of course, the complexities of it become narrowed when you're talking about having to bring a specific lawsuit. But, John, I want to turn back to you. You had to, in consultation with your client, the state of Mexico, start thinking about what exactly was justiciable and in what way a court could start thinking about this problem. So, as you mentioned, you decided to bring claims against gun manufacturers, and I'd love to hear about precisely what those claims were and then give us a sense of, you know, as I mentioned before, it's an incredibly unusual case to bring, and that's in part because of the major uphill battle that it is given the protections of US Law for gun manufacturers. So tell us about the claims and tell us about the uphill battle it faced due to the state of the law in the United States.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Sure. Well, first, I think it's important to understand the factual basis for the claims because I think if this lawsuit were against any other industry other than the gun industry, it would be a no brainer that the case could proceed to discovery and I think win. The only difficulty becomes because of the special protections that the gun industry gets in the United States. I mean, but the factual basis is that gun manufacturers know and have known for decades exactly how the criminal gun market is supplied both in the United States and in Mexico and other countries. And they know exactly how they contribute to that and how they could stop contributing to that criminal market. Specifically, ATF has found over 20 years ago that almost all crime guns are sold by a very small percentage of gun dealers. ATF found again, this goes back 20 years or so, that about 5% of gun dealers sell about 90% of the crime guns. About 1% of gun dealers sell about 66, 0% of the crime guns. And about on the flip side, about 90% of gun dealers sell no crime guns. So you know, what manufacturers are looking at is virtually all of their dealers, about 90% are law abiding, responsible business people who, when they see someone who has the buying practices and appearance of being a gun trafficker or a straw purchaser who's buying the gun for someone else, those gun dealers don't sell them the gun and they contact law enforcement. But unfortunately you have this small group that when they see somebody coming into their store, buying five 1015 AR15s, coming back the next week buying more, a couple weeks later buying more, it's obvious that person is a gun trafficker. But for Those bad actors, the 1% or 5%, they will make the sale to make money even if they know that those guns are headed to the criminal market. And if they're on the border where they know that those guns are almost certainly headed to the cartels and manufacturers have a choice. Do we use these bad actors? Do we use these illegal sales by our downstream retailers? And generally, if you use negligence law, which you would for most any industry, the question is, is it reasonable? Are you using reasonable care if you choose to use the worst of the worst gun dealers and sales practices that are illegal, I think it's unreasonable. And in fact, the Supreme Court of Indiana, Supreme Court of Ohio and many other courts held years ago when similar cases were being made by cities around the country that those claims could be, could constitute negligence or public nuisance or other, you know, common law liability. And you know, by the way, in 2000, Smith & Wesson, a Major gun manufacturer agreed to stop supplying these bad dealers. They agreed to have standards for their. For their retailers. They agreed to, in a sense, act reasonably. So, you know, we know that it's feasible for manufacturers to do the right thing. Now, the complication with Mexico comes that in 2005, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms act, which gives gun manufacturers and gun dealers special protections from civil liability that no other industry or people in the United States have, which is quite remarkable. You have probably the most dangerous consumer product in America is in many ways the least accountable to civil justice. But because of plcaa, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms act, you have to come under an exception that would otherwise the law would bar liability. And Mexico claimed, I think correctly, that its case came under what's called the predicate exception, which is that if a manufacturer knowingly violates a law and thereby proximately causes harm, they are not specially protected from liability. And Mexico alleged, again, I think correctly, that manufacturers knowingly violate gun laws by deliberately supplying gun dealers and gun sales practices that they know are illegal and supply traffickers for the cartels and cause harm to Mexico.

[Natalie Orpet]

And what exactly are the laws that are alleged to be broken such that they, as you say, they're knowingly breaking laws in order to do this, what are the statutes under which these claims are being brought?

[Jonathan Loewy]

Well, they're provisions of the Gun Control act which prohibit gun trafficking and straw purchasing. And, you know, it is illegal for a gun dealer to sell a gun to someone when they know or there's reason to know that that person is buying the gun for someone else or is intending to traffic those guns to sell those guns on the criminal market. And manufacturers, you know, in my view, meet every element of aiding and abetting those violations by deliberately supplying dealers that they know will engage in these illegal sales which arm the cartels.

[Natalie Orpet]

Right. So just to make sure I understand the allegation is, is an aiding and abetting claim, correct? It's. It's that this law covers distributors, not necessarily manufacturers. But the legal theory is that the manufacturers, given the knowledge that they have, are aiding and abetting the dealer's violation of that statute. Is that correctly stated?

[Jonathan Loewy]

That's correct. And in fact, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms act in the section that has this exception for knowing violations of law, has examples of some of the sorts of violations of law that would take a case out of PLCA special protections. And one of those examples is a manufacturer aiding and abetting what is essentially a illegal straw purchase. The statute doesn't use the word straw purchase, but what they describe is a straw purchase. And that is precisely one of the types of claims that Mexico makes against the manufacturers.

[Natalie Orpet]

Okay, got it. So, Chantal, it's been several years now, and the case has, of course, been proceeding through different courts, which. John, will come back to you to give us a little bit of sense of what those proceedings looked like from the courts. But, Chantal, I'm interested in hearing from you what the reaction was in Mexico to anywhere along the way. The knowledge that Mexico was bringing this suit in the first place, the various developments along the way. How have people been thinking about it and reacting in Mexico?

[Chantal Flores]

Sure. First, it was seen as a bold move considering the shared history between both countries. We don't always see Mexico standing up against the United States. That's how we saw it. Right. And obviously this brought a sense of nationalism, but I think it also brought a lot of public awareness about the connection between US Guns and cartel violence that before, I think we didn't have that connection that clear. Right. We usually see These videos on TikTok and YouTube, you know, of members of the cartels showing these arsenal that you just think, like, where are they getting all these guns from? So I think one of the big wins so far is this public awareness. But I think it also. There's a lot of skepticism because it seems like something hard to win considering how the US Gun industry is protected by the American government. Right. So, yeah, I think in general, the people of Mexico welcome the lawsuit, but I don't think we see it as something that Mexico can win.

[Natalie Orpet]

Okay, so. And do you have the sense, Chantel, that there's sort of a widespread desire to somehow hold the United States responsible for the guns that are making their way into the hands of cartel members?

[Chantal Flores]

Well, I don't think it's a priority right now. I think what Mexicans are demanding now from the government is accountability and honesty about the impacts of cartel violence on Mexicans and on our communities, and to also acknowledge the role of the government in sustaining this violence. So I think right now the attention is more on the inside. Right. That we need to start recognizing the role of the Mexican government in allowing these levels of violence. So I think a few years ago, probably this legal action was welcome, and I think it's still welcome. But it's not the priority right now when we are not seen a government that is being honest about the harm cartel violence is doing to Mexican and the role of authorities, again, at all levels in this violence. Right.

[Natalie Orpet]

Yeah. And are these demands of the government to be more accountable and recognize the violence that is being perpetrated on Mexicans. Is that a broadly focused concern or is there also some specific concern about the role of guns in particular?

[Chantal Flores]

No, I think right now it's more broad. Right. And it's also that the demand for a holistic approach to this. Right. A more comprehensive approach. So we have seen the government, you know, focus on police operations, efforts to fix the police, especially at the local or municipal level, to reduce corruption. They have focused on social programs to address poverty and inequality and obviously militarization, which has also resulted in human rights violations. But the challenges remain as starting with corruption and power influence. So I think right now the demand is for accountability, transparency and honesty. Right? I think that the past and current administration have put a lot of effort into minimizing some issues, such as the crisis of disappearances and the struggle families face when searching for their loved ones. I think right now the general population is just demanding the truth, the recognition of what is happening and the recognition of the pain and suffering that entire families and entire communities have been experiencing for the past decades.

[Natalie Orpet]

This episode of the LA Fare Podcast is brought to you by Wildgreen. Wildgreen is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and pastas. Wildgrain's boxes are fully customizable to your tastes and dietary restrictions. In addition to their classic variety box, they recently launched a new gluten free box and a plant based box that is 100% vegan. Best of all, they take the hassle out of baking since all items bake from frozen in 25 minutes or less with no mess or cleanup. I've been really impressed by how easy Wildgreen makes the whole experience, everything from online ordering to tracking deliveries to unpacking and storing, and of course, the baking itself. Are you ready to bring all your favorite carbs right to your doorstep? Be sure to check out Wildgrain so you can begin building your own box of artisanal breads, pastas and pastries. For a limited time, Wildgrain is offering our listeners $30 off the first box plus free croissant in every box when you go to wildgrain.com lawfair to start your subscription. You heard me. Free croissant in every box and $30 off your first box when you go to wildgrain.com lawfair that's wildgrain.com lawfair or you can use promo code lawfair at checkout.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Did you know Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the United States with thousands of different plants and more than 2 million happy customers. They have all the plants your yard needs like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and so much more. Whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered. Find the perfect fit for your climate and space. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to get your dream yard. Order online and get plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home. Their alive and thrive guarantee ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Plus get support from trained plant experts on call to help you plan your garden. I've been redoing my cabin in the woods recently and gutting a house is pretty expensive. Instead of paying paying thousands more for expensive landscaping, I have a honey crisp apple tree. Coming from Fast Growing Trees to plant, I couldn't be more excited about the shade and frankly the apples and the cost savings is really hard to beat. You don't have to drive around to nurseries and big garden centers and choose plants from a limited assortment. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to order online and your plants are delivered to your door in just a few days. Whether you're looking to add privacy, shade or natural beauty or apples to your yard, Fast Growing Trees has in house experts ready to help you make the right selection. With plant experts on call to offer growing and care advice, you can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to take care of your plants and everything else you need. No green thumb required. This spring, they have the best deals for your yard, up to half off on selected plants and other deals. And listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code lawfair at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fast growing trees.com using the code lawfair at checkout fast growing trees.com code lawfare now's the perfect time to plant. Use Lawfare to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply.

[Natalie Orpet]

At 1-800-Flowers.com we know that connections are at the heart of being human. Whether celebrating life's joys or comforting during tough times, 1-800-Flowers helps you express what words can't for nearly 50 years, millions have trusted 1-800-Flowers to deliver thoughtful gifts that help create lasting bonds. Because it's more than just a gift, it's your way of showing you care. Visit 1-800-Flowers.com acast and connect today. That's 1-800-Flowers.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Com acast work management platforms ugh endless onboarding it bottlenecks admin requests. But what if things were different? Monday.com is different. No lengthy onboarding, beautiful reports in minutes, custom workflows you can build on your own. Easy to use prompt, free AI. Huh. Turns out you can love a work management platform. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoy join. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have.

[Chantal Flores]

One of your assistant's assistants switch you.

[Jonathan Loewy]

To Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail].

[Natalie Orpet]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to 15 per month required Intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes.

[Jonathan Loewy]

And fees, extra fee, full [e-mail].

[Natalie Orpet]

John, I want to ask you about how the case has progressed since it was brought a couple of years ago, but I think in light of Chantal's comments, I'm also wondering if you have any initial thoughts on how the government's role in this case as plaintiffs, initial plaintiffs, is meaningful in that broader context. This is, you know, do you have a sense that in bringing this case the government thinks that it is trying to address some of the concerns that Chantal was describing?

[Jonathan Loewy]

Sure. Well, I think guns in particular, US Guns, are at the root of every problem that Chantal mentioned. And I represent the government of Mexico. I disagree with, you know, some of the characterizations. But whatever one's view of, of the disappearances and and all of the other issues, I mean, in my view, none of that would happen if you didn't have this flood of guns coming from the U.S. i mean, that's why you have such heavily armed cartels. That's why you have their criminal activity, their influence, their violence. They could be stopped and they could be stopped without a extraordinary effort by Mexican military or police if they were not armed to the teeth. And that can only happen from the US Gun industry because the United States is unique in the world. It is the only country in the world that combines a massive gun industry with extraordinarily weak laws and policies that enable gun manufacturers and gun dealers to engage in conduct and practices that they could not get away with anywhere else in the world. So the reason that Mexico has this huge lethal gun violence problem and criminal activity is because of their next door neighbor who is essentially Dumping guns, including military style guns and 50 caliber sniper rifles that can literally shoot down helicopters and blow through the fuselage of an airplane. I mean, these are the sorts of guns that are being sold in US Gun shops to obvious gun traffickers and manufacturers are deliberately supplying that pipeline. So if you took Mexico to any other part of the world without us as a neighbor, you know, with our combination of weak laws and ravenous gun industry, they wouldn't have those problems. And that's a tremendous tragedy to the Mexican people.

[Natalie Orpet]

Yeah, it's really interesting to think about the litigation itself and the strategy there in the broader context of the policy concerns that Chantal was describing. I do want to turn back to the specifics of the case and how it proceeded because it seems, you know, you described the sort of complicated legal framework that was faced from the very beginning. But as I understand it, the way that the case proceeded through the courts was a bit circuitous as well. So can you just talk to us about how the case made its way through the district court, the appellate court, and beyond?

[Jonathan Loewy]

Sure. Well, the case was filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, and the gun manufacturers move to dismiss, arguing for the most part that the case was prohibited by the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms act, what I'll call plca. And by the way, as someone who has litigated dozens of lawsuits against manufacturers and dealers, that happens in every single suit we bring. And by the way, in most of them, those motions are ultimately denied because courts ultimately recognize that Plaquett, though it's unjust, is not nearly as broad as the gun industry likes to claim. But in this case, the district judge granted the motion to dismiss and held that Mexico's case was barred by plca. And the court held that even though PLCA has this predicate exception where if you knowingly violate a law that proximately causes harm, you're not protected. The district court ruled that in his view, under plca, the statute that a defendant violates has to supply the cause of action that they are bringing. So if you're claiming that there's a violation of the Gun Control act, the action has to be a civil action sort of supplied by the Gun Control Act. By the way, most courts have held that the Gun Control act does not provide a civil cause of action. And the court's interpretation of placa is something that no court had ever reached that conclusion, had never construed plaque in that way. Mexico appealed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and 1st Circuit, by 3 to 0 margin, reversed that decision and held as virtually every other court in the United States has held that the predicate exception exempts cases, allows for cases where gun companies violate the law. I mean, this is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It does not protect unlawful commerce and arms. And you do not need to have the civil action arising out of the violation of statutory law, if that makes any sense the way I've described it. And so the First Circuit held that Mexico's case does come under the predicate exception. At this early stage of the case, Mexico had alleged all the elements of aiding and abetting violations of federal gun laws. And there was disputes over whether, if we want to get into the legal weeds, into whether Mexico's aiding and abetting claim was like the Twitter case at the Supreme Court decided not so long ago. In that case, the court held that Twitter could not be liable for a terrorist action. And the gun company's major argument really was, this case is just like Twitter.

[Natalie Orpet]

This is the Tamna case.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Yes.

[Natalie Orpet]

Okay.

[Jonathan Loewy]

And our Mexico's response was this case has very little to do with Twitter. I mean, Twitter was sort of passive. They created Twitter and then they, you know, allowed virtually anyone to access it and, you know, terrorists access it. But they didn't deliberately. Twitter did not deliberately engage in any conduct that facilitated the act, and they certainly didn't intend for the terrorist activity to take place in Mexico alleged that the gun manufacturers do deliberately use these dealers and practices that. That violate the law, and they do so in order to profit off the criminal market. That's very unlike Twitter and is actually very similar to a older Supreme Court case called Direct Sales, where the Supreme Court held that a distributor of morphine could be liable, in fact, criminally liable, for aiding and abetting or conspiring with a corrupt downstream. In that case, Dr. Who was illegally selling morphine, that the. That was supplied by this company, Direct sales. And the 1st Circuit agreed with Mexico that this case is a lot more like direct sales than it is like Twitter. So then the defendants, the gun manufacturers, petitioned the Supreme Court to review. They claimed that there was a circuit split, which I will say parenthetically just is completely incorrect. There was absolutely no conceivable circuit split involving the issues arising in Mexico's case. And once cert was granted, defendants sort of never mentioned a circuit split.

[Natalie Orpet]

Again, what did they claim the circuit.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Split was they looked back to cases that predated PLCA and said that in some of those cases, courts held that gun manufacturers could not be a proximate cause of harm. These were cases brought by cities around the United States against gun manufacturers with similar theories to Mexico. But those cases were construing state law, which is not a subject for Supreme Court review. And they certainly weren't construing PLCA and the predicate exception, because PLCA did not exist during those cases. So it was completely manufactured. It really didn't make any sense. And, you know, for that reason, sort of, once the petition was granted, the court took the case again. They never mentioned this was circuit split because it was indefensible, but it did result in the court taking the case. The defendants also, when they saw it review, they. And I'm paraphrasing slightly, but the question presented that they asked the court to take was something like whether the alleged conduct of. Of the gun industry, whether they're. They're aiding and abetting, could be deemed the proximate cause of Mexico's harm. Which is pretty bold statement. You know, I don't think that, you know, gun industry conduct is the only proximate cause of harm. They're one of the proximate causes of harm. They're a proximate cause of harm. But the question they asked was sort of suggested that the lower court had ruled that manufacturers were the only proximate cause of harm. Of course, that was completely incorrect. That isn't what the court ruled. That isn't what Mexico claimed. But that was their question, and that was accepted by the court. Now then, once it was accepted, they dropped their circuit split argument. They also changed the question presented, which I'd never heard of before, without even explaining it, and they just correct it to the question is, can aiding and abetting be a proximate cause of harm? And that may sound like sort of wonky in the weeds details, but it's extremely important because the question they presented was sort of very compelling and attractive if it was true. Of course, if you were honest and accurate and said a proximate cause of harm, it's not really that compelling and interesting. So it was sort of a bait and switch, in my view. But ultimately their petition was accepted and the court took the case.

[Natalie Orpet]

Okay, so, Chantal, let's pick up with you, because I know that you did write an article about this lawsuit, and I think you were paying pretty close attention when it reached the Supreme Court. So tell us what interested you about this and where you think things stand today.

[Chantal Flores]

I think I'm very pessimistic. I'm sorry, I just. For me, it's hard to see that the Supreme Court will cite with Mexico Especially because I think there is a concern that this could open the door to more lawsuits or to other foreign governments following Mexico's actions. Right. But I still think that what Mexico doing is important, is showing the harm that US Guns are causing, not only in Mexico, but actually beyond our borders. Right. Because many, many foreign governments have also expressed how this flow across the US Border doesn't stop in Mexico, but it continues further south and contributes to. To the deadly violence across the entire region, like Central America, Central America, Latin America and the Caribbean. So, yeah, right now I think it's hard for me to believe that Mexico will win this, but I think there's a lot to do after this lawsuit. Right. It opens a space for further discussion on how to keep the US Gun industry accountable.

[Natalie Orpet]

Okay, that's really helpful. And John, so I know you were in the courtroom for oral argument, and that's a whole other discussion about how things went and all of that. But I'm most interested from you in thinking about, now that it's before the court, it's out of your hands. There are sort of two different outcomes here. Of course, there are a lot of nuances in between. But if you can tell us what your thoughts are on the implications of this case, if Mexico prevails or if it doesn't, in the broader context of your work that has been challenging the gun industry for many years.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Sure. And, you know, first of all, it's not nearly as simple as will Mexico, quote, unquote, win or will Mexico, quote, unquote, lose before the Supreme Court. There's a lot of permutations in the middle about what sort of liability and what's the level of proof and of an allegations needed to bring a case. And I have no idea what the court is going to rule on. There's a lot of gray area, and it'll be very important to examine the details of the opinion to see, you know, what is the. The future of permissible gun industry litigation. But I guess my main point is that regardless of what happens in the Supreme Court, I believe Mexico has already won a great deal just by bringing this case and explaining to the rest of the world, using this case as a vehicle to explain to the rest of the world the problem of US Guns being trafficked to Mexico and the role that the US Gun industry plays in that, which I don't think people were talking about before this case much at all. I mean, they would talk about the problem of US Guns in Mexico, but it was not a major international issue about the role of the gun industry and how that flow of guns could be stopped. And one thing that happened in the First Circuit is there was an amicus brief brought by a number of countries in the Caribbean and a number of law enforcement entities in the United States and district attorneys in the United States, a number of state attorney generals in the US and all of them were explaining that this is a massive problem, not just in Mexico, but in Jamaica and in communities across the U.S. this issue has been addressed in the United Nations. I've spoke at the UN in Vienna, in my organization, spoke to the UN in Geneva and in the Organization of American States and the Inter American Court for Human Rights and the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, all discussing this issue with a focus on Mexico's litigation. And that's really important because in my view, it's really a start to a global effort to address this global crisis of US Gun policy that's leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world. And another big part of the education is that this pipeline of traffic guns from the United States is causing tremendous harm in the U.S. i mean, the fentanyl trafficking leading to opioid overdoses in the US Is fueled by this crime gun pipeline from the US to the cartels. Migration is caused to a large degree by violence in Mexico that occurs because of US Guns to Mexico. The cartels themselves are spreading their presence in cities around the US as well as Canada and other countries. None of that would be happening if you didn't have this pipeline of guns from the US Gun industry to Mexico. And President Sheinbaum of Mexico is now speaking a lot about this lawsuit and about the problems that the lawsuit addresses. And that's a big deal because it's becoming a big part of the bilateral relations between the US And Mexico. And another thing is that we've been talking about Mexico's case against gun manufacturers, but Mexico brought another lawsuit, which I'm also counsel for, against gun dealers in Arizona. And that case is in discovery and ongoing and proceeding. So the Mexican government has made clear that they're not sort of all or nothing on this lawsuit. I mean, this is part of a much broader strategy to stop the flow of guns to their country and includes other civil lawsuits, human rights actions, advocacy, diplomacy, international efforts, and we're seeing all of that. So I think that broader effort in my organization, global action and gun violence, is a part of that, and that's an extremely important effort. And in my view, actually one of the most promising, if not the most promising strategy to reduce gun violence in the United States as well, because these sorts of bold efforts to stop the crime gun pipeline were not being taken in the United States, but Mexico is taking them. And if Mexico succeeds, Mexico will benefit greatly. But I think the United States would benefit even more.

[Natalie Orpet]

So, Chantal, I want to end with you to get your sense of what this case will mean going forward. So we know, as John described, it could come out with Mexico prevailing or not. And there are a lot of nuances of exactly what it will look like. So I'm interested in what you think, think the meaning will be, whether with respect to exactly how the case comes out here or sort of more generally with just the fact that the case happened. What are you looking for going forward, and how do you think this will impact things in Mexico?

[Chantal Flores]

Like I mentioned, this lawsuit has raised awareness, which I think is the first wind to make this connection between US Guns and cartel violence. But I think it also has to bring the attention. I mean, I'm Mexican. I need to focus on Mexico and the Mexican government. And based on my reporting on the ground, we also need to see what can Mexico do at the domestic level, what kind of domestic measures can implement to. To tackle this issue. We know that the US Gun industry is way too powerful. And we also know that corruption among Mexican officials also enables or facilitates this flow, this iron river. Right. So I think it's great what Mexico is doing. I think I'm more optimistic about the lawsuit in Arizona. We'll see. We'll see what happens. But I kind of disagree that by stopping this flow, cartel violence will also stop. Right. I've seen mothers recovering fragments of bones in Tamaulipas and Coahuila, just across Texas, of bodies that were disappeared with acid or burnt. So the cartels are always evolving. They will always find other tools or methods to control people, to recruit people, to kill people. So, yes, it is important to focus on these efforts to stop the Iron river so the cartels have less firepower, so the violence is less lethal. But I think it's another fight to separate the cartels from Mexican society and from Mexican government. And I think here in Mexico, we are not ready to have that conversation yet.

[Natalie Orpet]

Okay. I think we're going to have to leave it there. But, Chantal, John, thank you so much for joining me. Thank you.

[Jonathan Loewy]

Thank you.

[Natalie Orpet]

The Lawfare podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, lawfairmedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look out for our other podcasts, including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation. Our latest Lawfare Podcast presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our written [e-mail] the podcast is edited by Jen Patya and our audio engineer. This episode was Kara Schillen of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening. Weight Loss it needs to be fast and sustainable. Noom GLP1 starts at just $149 and ships to your door in seven days. Take it from Lauren, who lost 22 pounds on Noom.

[Jonathan Loewy]

If I come off of the GLP1, it's not going to automatically make my weight.

[Natalie Orpet]

Yo yo back $149 glp1s. Now that's Noom smart. Get started at noom.com Real Noom user compensated to provide their story. Individual results may vary. Not all customers will medically qualify for prescription medications. Compounded medications are not reviewed by the FDA for safety, efficacy, or.