The Supreme Court could soon decide whether the Mexican government can sue U.S. gun manufacturers, arguing that America’s gun industry is partly responsible for mayhem committed by drug cartels.

Mexico claims the companies engaged in bad business by selling guns that hold more than 10 rounds, including semi-automatic rifles.

The Mexican government, which says the guns were smuggled across the border to commit crimes, is asking for billions in damages and for the court to impose an injunction on the companies so they have to meet new safety requirements.

---

---

“Mexico’s suit has no business in an American court,” wrote Noel Francisco, former President Donald Trump’s solicitor general and a current partner at the law firm Jones Day, which specializes in antitrust cases and is representing the gun companies.

Those being sued are: Smith & Wesson Brands Inc., Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., Glock Inc., Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Witmer Public Safety Group Inc., Sturm Ruger & Co. Inc., Interstate Arms, Colt’s Manufacturing Co. and Century International Arms Inc.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the companies argue that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in permitting Mexico’s lawsuit to move forward, warning that other foreign governments could file lawsuits “all seeking to distract from their own political failings by laying the blame for criminal violence at the feet of the American firearms industry.”

“Mexico boasts some of the strictest gun laws in the world,” their filing reads. “The country has only one firearm store — and it is located on a military base. At the same time, Mexico is presently suffering a scourge of violence at the hands of its drug cartels. But rather than take meaningful steps to solve that problem — improving border security, rooting out public corruption, and adequately supporting its police, for starters — the country has instead turned to litigation.”

Mexico argues in its complaint that 70% to 90% of guns recovered from crimes are trafficked from the United States.

“For decades the Government and its citizens have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border, into criminal hands in Mexico. This flood is not a natural phenomenon or an inevitable consequence of the gun business or of U.S. gun laws. It is the foreseeable result of the Defendants’ deliberate actions and business practices,” the Mexican government alleges.

“Defendants design, market, distribute, and sell guns in ways they know routinely arm the drug cartels in Mexico. Defendants use reckless and corrupt gun dealers and dangerous and illegal sales practices that the cartels rely on to get their guns. Defendants design these guns to be easily modified to fire automatically and to be readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico.”

The district court dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, reasoning it bars lawsuits against firearm companies when their products are misused.

The 1st Circuit reversed that decision, reasoning that the lawsuit is valid because the gun companies may be aiding and abetting the cartel.

It would take four justices to vote in favor of reviewing the 1st Circuit’s ruling to take up the case and schedule it for oral arguments next term, which begins in October.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen filed a brief with the high court, joined by more than two dozen other states, telling the justices to correct the lower court’s decision, warning that “Americans’ Second Amendment rights could be threatened.”

“American firearms manufacturers should not and do not have to answer for the actions of criminals, as established by the commonsense federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Mexico’s bad policies created the country’s gun violence problem,” Mr. Knudsen said. “Rather than take responsibility, Mexico and anti-gun activists are trying to blame and bankrupt American companies that follow the law. The appeals court erred in their decision and the Supreme Court needs to correct it.”

Timothy D. Lytton, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law, said Mexico would have to prove that the manufacturers facilitated the guns going to cartels.

“Proving those facts is no small challenge,” Mr. Lytton said.