Scope of Gunmaker Liability Shield Left Unclear by SCOTUS Ruling

Gun companies facing lawsuits over Chicago gun violence and an Independence Day parade mass shooting got a narrower ruling from the US Supreme Court on a federal liability shield than the game-changing guidance they were hoping for, according to legal scholars.

The high court’s consideration of Mexico’s lawsuit against US gunmakers loomed over a pair of high-profile cases in Illinois trial courts: a lawsuit against Glock over pistols the city of Chicago claims are too easy to modify and suits brought against Smith & Wesson by victims of the 2022 Highland Park parade shooting.

While the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos held Mexico was barred from bringing claims that gunmakers play a role in funneling weapons to drug cartels, justices didn’t address an argument at the heart of the claim: whether gunmakers were the “proximate cause” of harm done by third parties.

If such a case ever got to trial, gun manufacturers could have to square off against sympathetic testimony from victims of gun violence and jurors primed to award them enormous damages.

“The firearms industry basically dodged a bullet on the Mexico litigation, which is extremely important, because you only need one big case like this to pose a major threat to the industry,” said Timothy Lytton, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law who edited a book on gun-related tort litigation.

The decision also “did not deliver the much bigger win for the firearms industry, which was to suggest that under no circumstances could the sale of a firearm by the manufacturer be considered a proximate cause of injury to someone hurt by that weapon by a criminal,” Lytton said.

Glock has since cited the ruling in its effort to get a Cook County judge to throw out Chicago’s case, saying the high court rejected legal theories similar to those the city is relying on. In the Highland Park matter, all eyes will turn to the Illinois Appellate Court, which may take up interlocutory questions that strike at the heart of the debate over whether the suits can proceed.

Shielding Gunmakers

Gun manufacturers are broadly shielded from suits over a third party’s criminal gun use by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The law provides for exceptions, including when gunmakers knowingly break a law related to the sale or marketing of firearms and that violation is the proximate cause of harm.

The exception has been the subject of strenuous debate in Chicago-area courtrooms considering the Glock and Smith & Wesson cases. The city last year sued two gun shops and Glock, claiming the city’s awash in handguns that the manufacturer knew could be easily modified to fire like automatic weapons. In the consolidated Highland Park suits, victims of the shooting that killed seven people claimed Smith & Wesson aimed their marketing at vulnerable young men.

The underlying legal claims remain an unsettled area of law, Smith & Wesson said in a filing in the Highland Park case before the Mexico decision. Divergent legal authorities about “application of the PLCAA and what constitutes a predicate statutory exception” prompted the Supreme Court to “consider an appeal squarely addressing proximate causation,” they wrote in a late April filing.

But the justice’s analysis in the Mexico case—the first case involving the PLCAA to be taken by the court—didn’t end up touching the issue of proximate cause. The court instead found Mexico’s allegations weren’t strong or specific enough to plausibly claim Smith & Wesson aided and abetted cartel violence.

Future of Illinois Suits

Since the Mexico decision centered on the proper standard for aiding and abetting, it likely leaves the Illinois suits against gunmakers generally unaffected, said professor Linda Mullenix of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, who wrote a forthcoming book about litigation against the gun industry.

“I don’t think the Supreme Court gave them anything to work with,” Mullenix said of the industry.

Mullenix noted that Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion emphasized that “of course” lawsuits that do qualify for the predicate exception can proceed.

“That’s a big concession,” Mullenix said. “They’re saying ‘we’re not applying it in this case, but if it’s there, you can use it.’”

Glock recently filed paperwork arguing that the Supreme Court’s reasoning bolsters its case, saying the allegations in the Mexico case are similar. The filing cited language in Kagan’s opinion that interpreting an exception too broadly would “swallow most of the rule.”

A Cook County judge hasn’t yet ruled on Glock’s motion to dismiss, but seemed somewhat skeptical in arguments this spring.

Lawrence Keane, general counsel and senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, predicted the high court’s ruling would buttress Smith & Wesson’s defense in the Highland Park matter. The logic and claims underlying the two cases were largely similar, he said: “allegations that somehow marketing was a knowing violation of a statute and that was the proximate cause of the harm.”

The Highland Park suits earlier this year largely survived Smith & Wesson’s motions to dismiss, with Lake County Circuit Judge Jorge Ortiz rejecting their argument that PLCAA shielded it entirely.

But specific questions about proximate cause and PLCAA were recently allowed to go up to the state appellate court. Illinois higher courts haven’t directly addressed certain issues of PLCAA immunity or the constitutionality of the state’s Firearm Industry Responsibility Act.

Answers from the appeals court could determine how or whether the Highland Park case moves forward, Ortiz wrote. Meanwhile, the underlying case will proceed, and attorneys are anticipating a possible trial date in early 2027.

Some plaintiffs in the suits are represented by Everytown Law. Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates gun-safety measures, is backed by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.

The cases are Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 22LA00000487 and City of Chicago v. Glock, Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 2024CH06875.