Supreme Court will hear from US gun makers sued by Mexico for $10 billion
The gun makers reject those claims. They appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that let the lawsuit move forward even though U.S. law largely shields gun makers from lawsuits.
Depending on how the court rules, it could also affect a narrow legal path that helped families of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School secure a $73 million settlement from the gun maker Remington.
Here's what to know about the case:
Why did Mexico sue U.S. gun companies?
Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels.
The Mexican government says 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market.
The defendants include big-name manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. The lawsuit is still in its early stages, and if the court does side with Mexico it would still have to prove the allegations.
What do the gun companies say?
The gun makers say there is no evidence the industry allows trafficking and they disagree with Mexico's data about how many weapons originate in the U.S. The Mexican government, not U.S. gun makers, is responsible for enforcing the laws and fighting crime, they argue.
The industry is shielded from most civil lawsuits arising from crimes committed using firearms under a 20-year-old law, though Mexico has argued that it doesn't apply to crimes committed outside of the U.S.
The gun companies are asking the justices to overturn an appeals court ruling that allowed the case to move forward.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly violating the law.
What happens next?
That exception has come up in other cases.
The victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gun maker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used on the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed.
The Supreme Court declined to hear that case. After reaching the $73 million settlement, the families said they hoped it would lead to more safety and accountability.
Depending on how the justices rules, their eventual findings could narrow or close that legal path.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Today in History: Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin walk on the moon
In 1775, 250 years ago, Major Joseph Vose of Milton led about 400 soldiers and rowers on a raid on Boston Light, which was held by British troops. The patriots stripped the lighthouse of furniture and the island of gunpowder and set afire the lighthouse. This was the latest in a series of raids -- including off Cape Ann -- destroying light houses and other navigation aids thought to benefit the British. Vose's forces also stripped the Nantasket Peninsula of grains. In 1917, America's World War I draft lottery began as Secretary of War Newton Baker, wearing a blindfold, reached into a glass bowl and pulled out a capsule containing the number 258 during a ceremony inside the Senate office building. Advertisement In 1944, an attempt by a group of German officials to assassinate Adolf Hitler with a bomb failed as the explosion only wounded the Nazi leader. In 1951, Jordan's King Abdullah I was assassinated in Jerusalem by a Palestinian gunman who was shot dead by security. In 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon after reaching its surface in their Apollo 11 lunar module. In 1976, America's Viking 1 robot spacecraft made a successful, first-ever landing on Mars. In 1977, a flash flood hit Johnstown, Pa., killing more than 80 people and causing $350 million worth of damage. In 1990, Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, one of the court's most liberal voices, announced he was stepping down. In 1993, White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster Jr., 48, was found shot to death in a park near Washington, D.C.; it was ruled a suicide. In 2006, the Senate voted 98-0 to renew the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act for another quarter-century. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed an executive order prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects. In 2012, gunman James Holmes opened fire inside a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, during a midnight showing of 'The Dark Knight Rises,' killing 12 people and wounding 70 others. (Holmes was later convicted of murder and attempted murder, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.) In 2015, the United States and Cuba restored full diplomatic relations after more than five decades of frosty relations rooted in the Cold War. Advertisement


Miami Herald
15 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
We're pro-choice Floridians — and we trust David Jolly to defend our rights
We are Floridians who are actively committed to securing reproductive rights in Florida, and we are enthusiastically supporting David Jolly for governor. He strongly believes: 'Reproductive health care decisions should be made between women and their doctors, not politicians.' He wants to bring back the protections of Roe v. Wade, as do the over 57% of Florida voters who voted for Amendment 4 last November. David Jolly told us: 'I voted for Amendment 4. As governor, I would work to enact Amendment 4 into law. I support Roe. I am pro-choice. And as your governor I would veto any legislation that would restrict reproductive healthcare in the state of Florida.' Roe is the United States Supreme Court case that originally established the right to an abortion and was overruled by a 2023 Supreme Court decision. Jolly was not always a supporter of abortion rights. When he was in Congress many years ago, he did support anti-abortion positions. But since then, he has changed his mind. After all, he was raised in a culture that deplored abortion. However, when faced with the tangible and tragic harms resulting from restrictive abortion policies, his view changed. Informed by empathy, ethical considerations and his views on the appropriate role of government, he is now solidly pro-choice. What? A politician who changes his mind to do the right thing? Is that not what we all want? Well, it certainly is what we want. Jolly's positions track exactly the language of Amendment 4: 'No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider.' That language is the same codification of Roe v. Wade that Jolly supports. We find it admirable that Jolly is someone who was willing to change his mind after being confronted with the realities of the anti-abortion movement and its devastating impact on those who need abortions but cannot get them. None of us would be supporting him today unless he had realized his past stance on reproductive choice was wrong. Jolly pledges that he will govern according to his values, which are based on 'love, kindness, respect and dignity.' He says that there are three basic principles that govern his decisions: ▪ Florida's economy should work for everyone in the state. ▪ Florida's laws and policies should apply equally to all. ▪ The personal freedoms of all Floridians must be protected. Those values and principles point only to support for reproductive rights. We trust David Jolly on reproductive rights. But this is not a one-issue race. We also support his positions on other issues that he and we consider critical to Florida: addressing the affordability of housing, property insurance and health care, strengthening and improving public education and allowing our public universities to thrive without government interference. If we cannot accept that politicians can change their minds when they realize they were wrong, we are in for governance that none of us want. Jolly is a person who will live and govern by the same values and principles we all support. That's why dedicated pro-choice women leaders across Miami-Dade like Maribel Balbin, Cindy Lerner and Jennifer Stearns Buttrick are joining reproductive freedom champions throughout our state like Mona Reis, Susan Windmiller, former member of Congress Gwen Graham and former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Pariente in saying: We trust David Jolly on reproductive rights. Ellen Freidin is a lawyer and sponsor of Florida's Constitutional Equal Protection Clause and leader of the Fair Districts Florida movement. Jane Moscowitz is a former federal prosecutor. Donna Shalala is a former member of Congress and former president of the University of Miami. Barbara Zdravecky is the retired CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida.

Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's tariff threat bolsters Lula in Brazil, hurts Bolsonaro
SíO PAULO — President Trump may have thought that pressuring Brazil with higher tariffs would help his far-right ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, but the move has apparently backfired. Trump sent a letter this month to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva threatening a 50% import tax and directly linking the decision to Bolsonaro's trial on charges related to his supporters' 2023 attack on the capital, which the U.S. president called a 'witch hunt.' 'This trial should end immediately!' Trump wrote Thursday evening in a second letter, this one addressed to Bolsonaro. He added that he had 'strongly voiced' his disapproval through his tariff policy. Rather than backing down, Brazil's Supreme Court escalated the case, worsening Bolsonaro's legal troubles. On Friday morning, federal police raided Bolsonaro's home and political office. The former president was ordered to wear an ankle monitor, banned from using social media and hit with other restrictions. Meanwhile, Lula — who had seen his popularity decline, growing opposition in Congress and increasing obstacles to another reelection bid — seems to have gained politically from the situation. Now the 79-year-old leftist Lula, in office for the third nonconsecutive term of his long political career, is seeing renewed acceptance, congressional support against Trump and pleas to run one last time to defend Brazil's sovereignty. Lula has appeared more energized in public since Trump's announcement. At a national students assembly Thursday, he wore a blue cap reading 'Sovereign Brazil Unites Us' — a contrast to Trump's red MAGA cap. 'A gringo will not give orders to this president,' he told the crowd, and called the tariff hike 'unacceptable blackmail.' The impact on Lula is not a first. Trump's actions targeting other countries have boosted ideological rivals in Canada and Australia instead of strengthening his allies at a local level. Private pollster Atlas said Tuesday that Lula's unpopularity had reversed course after his feud with Trump. Lula's job approval went from at 47.3% in June to 49.7% since the tariffs battle began, Atlas said. The poll of more than 2,800 people was conducted July 11to13, with a margin of error of 2 percentage points. The study also said 62.2% of Brazilians think the higher tariffs are unjustified, while 36.8% agree with the move. Even Bolsonaro's former vice president, Sen. Hamilton Mourão, criticized Trump's move as undue interference in Brazil's politics, though he said he joined the U.S. president in condemning the trial against the far-right leader. Social media analytics firm Palver analyzed 20,000 messages about Trump on WhatsApp, Brazil's most widely used communication platform, a day after Trump's announcement. Its analysis said right-wing users dominated viral content, but spontaneous conversations leaned left, mocking Bolsonaro as submissive and defending Brazil's sovereignty. 'Trump has put Lula back in the game,' said Thomas Traumann, an independent political consultant and former spokesman for the Brazilian presidency who only weeks ago argued that Lula had lost his front-runner status in the presidential race as he struggled to deliver on his promises on the economy. 'Trump handed it to Lula on a silver platter,' Traumann said. Business leaders who until recently sided with Bolsonaro are having to court Lula to negotiate with Trump. Agribusiness, Brazil's largest economic sector and a traditional right-wing stronghold, united to criticize the U.S. president's move. Industry groups were quick to denounce the tariffs as politically motivated and lacking commercial justification. 'In general, with the major exception of a more radical conservative wing, [Trump's move] generated national outrage for violating Brazil's sovereignty,' lawmaker Arnaldo Jardim, a member of the congressional agricultural caucus, told the Associated Press. Jardim, who pushed for the approval of a reciprocity bill that could be used by Lula if there's no agreement until the Aug. 1 deadline, hardly sides with the Brazilian leader. 'Even among sectors that initially thought this could benefit Bolsonaro, many had to reconsider their positions,' he said. Top congressional leaders who recently helped nix a Lula decree to raise a transactions tax were moving toward a head-on collision with him. After Trump's announcement, they signed a joint statement agreeing with Lula's promise to use the reciprocity law against the U.S. In another change, Brazil's Congress decided to start moving on Lula's plan to give an income tax break to millions of poorer Brazilians. Many politicians said that such an initiative was dead after Lula became the first president in three decades to have a decree annulled by lawmakers. At the Supreme Court, Bolsonaro is only getting deeper into trouble as his trial continues. Last week, Brazil's chief prosecutor called for a guilty verdict, accusing the former president of leading an armed criminal organization, attempting to stage a coup and attempting violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, among other charges. After Bolsonaro lost his reelection bid and Lula was inaugurated in January 2023, a mob of Bolsonaro supporters ransacked government buildings in Brasilia, injuring dozens of law enforcement officers. It was reminiscent of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol two years earlier, in which a pro-Trump mob violently attacked the U.S. Capitol, killing and injuring police officers while trying to overturn Trump's election loss to Joe Biden. The defense will next likely present its case in the coming weeks, after which the panel of Supreme Court justices in the trial will vote on whether to convict or acquit him. The former president also suffered more consequences — the court's latest restrictions on Bolsonaro, including the ankle monitor, are part of a second investigation against one of his sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, a Brazilian lawmaker who currently lives in the United States and is known for his close ties to Trump. He has been under scrutiny for allegedly working with U.S. authorities to impose sanctions against Brazilian officials. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the criminal cases against Bolsonaro, said the Bolsonaros' actions attempted to pressure the Brazilian judiciary by involving the U.S. The court's decision cited both Trump's letter to Lula and several social media posts by the Bolsonaros in support of sanctions against Brazilian officials and speaking favorably about tariffs. 'A sovereign country like Brazil will always know how to defend its democracy and sovereignty,' De Moraes said. 'The judiciary will not allow any attempt to subject the functioning of the Supreme Court to the scrutiny of another state through hostile acts.' Jair Bolsonaro told journalists in Brasilia, the country's capital, that the ankle monitoring was a 'supreme humiliation.' 'I never thought about leaving Brazil, I never thought about going to an embassy, but the precautionary measures are because of that,' the former president said. In a statement, Eduardo Bolsonaro accused De Moraes of trying to criminalize Trump and the U.S. government. 'Since he has no power over them, he decided to make my father a hostage,' the younger Bolsonaro said of the judge. Pessoa and Savarese write for the Associated Press.