Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141)

argument 23-1141

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 31m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is Mexico’s legal theory for holding U.S. gun manufacturers liable?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case twenty three eleven forty one Smith and Wesson brands versus Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Mr. Francisco.

Mr. Francisco 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Mexico asserts that American firearms companies are responsible for cartel violence ravaging Mexico. Its theory is that federally licensed manufacturers sell firearms to licensed distributors who sell to licensed retailers, a small percentage of whom sell to straw purchasers. Some of whom transfer to smugglers, who then smuggle them into Mexico, hand them over to cartels, who in turn use them to commit murder in mayhem, all of which requires the government of Mexico to spend money. Needless to say, No case in American history supports that theory. and it's squarely foreclosed by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. As to proximate cause, this court has repeatedly said there must be a direct relationship between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury.

Mr. Francisco 1:03

But no such relationship exists if plaintiff's injury is caused by multiple intervening independent crimes committed by foreign criminals on foreign soil. to inflict harm on a foreign sovereign. As to aiding and abetting, Mexico doesn't identify a specific crime, criminal or criminal enterprise that defendants supposedly helped. Instead, it asserts that defendants are liable for every illegal sale by every retailer in America because they know that a small percentage of firearms are sold illegally and don't do more to stop it. Again, no case in history supports that theory. Indeed, if Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose.

Mr. Francisco 1:55

And Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers, since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash. The First Circuit gravely erred in embracing that implausible theory and should be reversed. I welcome your questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:12

Uh Mr Francisco, as to the predicate um uh d exception, uh which federal or state law uh is your is uh petitioner re uh reputed to have uh violated?

Mr. Francisco 2:28

So, my understanding, Your Honor, is that they are invoking the Federal aiding and abetting statute to argue that we have aided and abetted the Federal statutes that govern the sale of firearms. And they are alleging that retailers have knowingly sold firearms to straw purchasers and that we aided in abetting that knowing sale. That actually raises a very important question about their allegation of knowing. Knowing. I don't think it's relevant because I'm willing to even assume a certain level of knowledge. I don't think it matters. But their theory of knowledge is that we actually know that retailers are selling illegally. I'd actually urge you to look at that 2010 Washington Post article that they incorporate into their complaint.

Mr. Francisco 3:11

That article talks about a particular retailer called Lone Wolf. In 2010, it was the number one One seller of firearms that were found in Mexican crime gun scenes. And in that article, you actually have a quote from ATF that says that ATF has no uh has uh no basis to believe that uh lone wolf is doing anything illegal or wrong. Well, if the government doesn't know, how are we supposed to know? It reflects this convoluted theory that that simply because the gun is found in Mexico can be traced back to a retailer, that means the retailer necessarily sold it illegally, and that we know that the retailer sold it.

Clarence Thomas 3:51

Would would this be a different case if there was a specific s federal or state statute uh that was a le that you were known to have violated.

Mr. Francisco 4:03

Your Honor, uh it would be a different case. I would want to know more because I still think that uh depending on what they alleged, I would have very strong arguments on proximate cause and aiding and abetting liability, but it would certainly be a different case.

Clarence Thomas 4:17

Well the the the reason I ask is because the exception is for knowingly violating a State or Federal statute and it would seem helpful uh in t determining aiding and abetting and then eventually uh approximate cause if that comes up, if you knew which statute we were dealing with.