Friedman Kaplan Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief Examining Firearm Statute’s Proximate Cause Requirement
Friedman Kaplan recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of a coalition of distinguished legal scholars in Smith & Wesson Brands., et. al. vs. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the scope of a federal law that provides broad – but not absolute – immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers whose products are used to commit acts of violence.
In this case, the Mexican government sued a group of U.S.-based gun manufacturers, alleging that the manufacturers have intentionally fostered firearms trafficking to cartels in Mexico, and that the gun manufacturers should be responsible for the injuries that the Mexican government has suffered as a result of cartel violence. The manufacturers argue that Mexico’s lawsuit is barred by a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields gun industry participants from certain lawsuits resulting from third party misuse of firearms.
The amicus brief explains that PLCAA does not shield gun manufacturers whose own unlawful conduct is a proximate cause of harm resulting from intervening third-party criminal misuse of their firearms products. It also explains that injuries suffered by government entities are not necessarily too remote to justify legal relief. The brief takes no position as to the ultimate resolution of Mexico’s claims on their facts, and instead asks the Supreme Court to interpret PLCAA in a manner that is consistent with its plain text and traditional principles of common law – both of which the firearms industry defendants’ positions would contradict.
These conclusions follow from the expertise and scholarship of the 30 amici who joined the brief, all of whom are distinguished scholars of torts, statutory interpretation, and firearms regulation, many of whom are elected members of the American Law Institute, and several of whom have served as reporters for the recent Restatements of the Law of Torts.
This amicus brief follows on Friedman Kaplan’s extensive collaboration with legal scholars to file amicus submissions in jurisdictions including California, Washington, Hawaii, and New Jersey, where the scope and operation of PLCAA have been at issue. Earlier this year, a state court in New Jersey wholly denied a gun store’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought by the New Jersey Attorney General under the New Jersey public nuisance statute. The decision, notable because it reached the merits of PLCAA immunity where many similar challenges had not, cited Friedman Kaplan’s amicus brief at length and arrived at a resolution consistent with Friedman Kaplan’s advocacy.
The Friedman Kaplan team includes partner Timothy M. Haggerty, counsel Anil Vassanji, and associates Sofie Syed, Rupita Chakraborty, and Angela Garcia.