Writing from the right and left wings of the Supreme Court, Thomas and Jackson have emboldened Second Amendment absolutists to attack cases brought under the rubric of PLCAA. They invite lower court judges to grant early motions to dismiss. This is contrary to rule of law in an appellate system like ours. Our civil justice system permits plaintiffs to initially plead their cases comparatively generally and then to refine them in light of discovery.
Quick dismissals of properly pleaded, if general, claims undermine the proper evolution of individual lawsuits. Worse, it strips all courts of the chance to identify and analyze relevant issues of law. Even if Thomas and Jackson have rightly detected questions raised by PLCAA—what constitutes a statutory violation and what does a plaintiff have to plead to preliminarily identify one—their concurrences foreclose usual judicial processes for answering them.
The court as a whole and the two concurrences hurtle pell-mell toward making it virtually impossible for plaintiffs like Mexico to successfully plead their claims. Beyond that, the decision short-circuits the careful development of the law of PLCAA. The statute is a particularly intricate one, which already gave an industry that produces, markets, and sells exceptionally lethal products a large measure of impunity from any civil accountability for its harm-causing conduct.
The opinions handed down by the Supreme Court in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos thwart case-by-case determination of PLCAA’s applicability, a process that promotes careful explication of the law. This is a very poor ruling. It will put more firearms in the hands of criminals who will use them to wreak havoc. It will prevent victims of this havoc from seeking justice in court.
— Heidi Li Feldman in The Worst Part of the Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Blocking a Lawsuit Against Gunmakers
Cry baby. I’d play the worlds smallest violin for you, but there is not one small enough.
courts, not even SCOTUS, do not have latitude to sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation – there is this thing called separation of powers. That’s exactly what Mexico wanted SCOTUS and lower courts to do – be a ‘super-legislature’ to over rule the constitutionally elected legislature (i.e congress) and basically usurp the authority of Congress and have SCOTUS and lower courts ‘create law’ by litigation.
Does this idiot not realize how dangerous it would have been for SCOTUS to do that? It would have set precedence to effectively replace the law making authority of congress with the courts thus an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.
The PLCAA is a legal and constitutional law. Mexico failed to actually show any wrong doing on the part of firearms manufacturers. If there had been wrong doing on the part of firearms manufacturers SCOTUS would have ruled for Mexico. You can’t go into SCOTUS and say “Justices, the firearm manufacturers are liable because we say so therefore that is proof they are liable.” which is essentially what Mexico did.
“This is a very poor ruling. It will put more firearms in the hands of criminals who will use them to wreak havoc.”
As if this was the case creating the avenue by which criminals could acquire guns.
Crawl back under your rock and hope someone does not step on it!
BREAKING: Supreme Court Delivers a Crushing Blow to Trans Agenda.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/06/18/the-supreme-court-delivers-a-crushing-blow-to-trans-agenda-n4940916