In a major victory for American business and individual rights, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of American firearms companies in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

The Court recognized that allowing Mexico’s lawsuit to proceed would effectively eliminate the protections for American gun manufacturers passed by Congress in 2005. Mexico wanted to hold these companies liable for the damage caused by the Mexican criminal cartels in Mexico. They asked for billions in damages as well as injunctive relief to change their corporate policies. But Mexico’s lawsuit was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA).

The PLCAA was passed in response to mass torts claims brought against the American firearms industry in the 1990s. Congress shut the door on these lawsuits, making it clear that the industry should not be held liable for the criminal or unlawful use of their products. As Landmark argued in its amicus brief, Mexico tried to repackage those 1990s-era legal theories with stale and sparse facts that did not tie the gunmakers to the criminals. Justice Kagan noted the gulf between Mexico’s momentous request and the evidence they provided.

Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, wrote that courts should examine what the term “violation” means in the context of the PLCAA. Because the PLCAA excepts gun manufacturers from suits unless they violated a statute applicable to the sale or marketing of their product, Justice Thomas argued that there should be a prior finding that the manufacturer violated a statute before civil litigation can proceed. Otherwise, plaintiffs in PLCAA cases could allege statutory violations in their civil suits that should be heard as separate criminal proceedings which would afford defendants a different set of legal protections.

Justice Jackson’s concurrence highlighted how Mexico failed to allege any statutory violations. Mexico alleged that firearms distribution practices lead to non- particularized downstream crimes. The PLCAA, however, bars civil suits against firearms manufacturers unless plaintiffs allege the manufacturers violated a specific federal or state statute. Justice Jackson reasons that Mexico’s lawsuit, which seeks to create legislation through litigation, falls into the scope of suits that the PLCAA was designed to prevent.

Landmark filed a brief last December urging the Supreme Court to stop Mexico’s lawsuit. We argued that Mexico’s lawsuit is barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005. The PLCAA was passed in response to mass torts claims brought against the American firearms industry in the 1990s. Congress made clear that the industry should not be held liable for the criminal or unlawful use of their products. It is rare that Congress speaks so decisively and harshly on an issue. Mexico’s lawsuit repackaged claims that were very similar to those cases brought decades ago.

This case is important for American businesses far beyond the firearms industry. A looser standard of proximate cause could lead to more tort lawsuits for foreseeable misuse of a company’s products, even when the company has followed the law. Under a broader standard, for instance, a whiskey distiller could be held liable—to the tune of billions of dollars—for every instance of underage drinking in a college town simply because it legally supplies wholesaler-distributors who, in turn, legally supply liquor stores in the town. Justice Kavanaugh articulated a similar hypothetical in oral arguments to express his fears of what actions a broader liability standard could support.