Key points from the Supreme Court hearing:

• Mexico's government accuses U.S. gun manufacturers of enabling cartel violence through arms trafficking.
• The lawsuit seeks $10 billion in damages and new restrictions on firearm sales and marketing.
• Justices raised skepticism regarding the applicability of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The U.S. Supreme Court convened to deliberate a significant lawsuit filed by Mexico against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including prominent names like Smith & Wesson and Glock. Mexico claims that these companies are responsible for the illegal flow of military-style weapons into the hands of drug cartels, contributing to rampant violence throughout the country. The Mexican government is asking for $10 billion in damages and seeking to impose additional regulations on how these firearms are marketed and distributed.

Highlighting the gravity of the situation, attorneys for Mexico pointed out that the country has only one legal gun shop while millions of firearms flood the market from the U.S., often funneled through straw purchasers. Mexico argues that many of these firearms are used in violent crimes, including attacks on law enforcement and public officials, as well as widespread gang violence.

Although initially dismissed by a federal judge due to the broad immunities provided by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a recent ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the case to move forward, noting that Mexico had made a plausible argument that the companies may have knowingly violated laws governing firearm sales. They contend that the manufacturers directly market their products to irresponsible dealers who are known to engage in illegal sales to cartels.

During the Supreme Court hearings, justices expressed doubts regarding Mexico's capacity to prove that gun manufacturers can be held liable under the exceptions of the PLCAA. Many raised the point that simply being aware of illegal purchases isn't sufficient for establishing liability. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned what actual violations have occurred, while other justices highlighted the broad implications of allowing such a lawsuit to proceed against manufacturers.

Given the recent trends in gun-related violence statistics, with estimates indicating that a staggering 70–90% of guns seized at Mexican crime sites trace back to U.S. manufacturers, the lawsuit underscores a complex cross-border issue in U.S.-Mexico relations. As noted by Los Angeles Times, the ongoing battle has also surfaced in broader discussions about U.S. gun laws and the role of the firearms industry in public safety.

With a decision expected by the end of June, the stakes are high—not just for the involved gun companies but also for the victims of cartel violence and discussions about the implications of gun control in America.

For more insights into the case, see the full coverage by ABC News.