Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.

• Docket Number: 22-1823
• Decision Date: 22 January 2024
• Citation: 91 F.4th 511
• Parties: ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC.; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.; Beretta U.S.A. Corp.; Glock, Inc.; Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc., d/b/a Interstate Arms; Century International Arms, Inc.; Baretta Holdings Spa; Glock GES.M.B.H.; Colt's Manufacturing Company, LLC, Defendants, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

91 F.4th 511

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC.; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.;Beretta U.S.A. Corp.; Glock, Inc.; Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.;Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc., d/b/a Interstate Arms;Century International Arms, Inc.; Baretta Holdings Spa; Glock GES.M.B.H.;Colt's Manufacturing Company, LLC, Defendants, Appellees.

No. 22-1823

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

January 22, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS[Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Judge]

Steve D. Shadowen and Jonathan E. Lowy, with whom Richard M. Brunell, Nicholas W. Shadowen, Shadowen PLLC, and Global Action on Gun Violence were on brief, for appellant.

Sameer Advani, James C. Dugan, Gabrielle K. Antonello, Ferdinand G. Suba, Jr., Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Zainab Ali, and Benita Yu on brief for Jorge SánchezCordero Dávila and Raúl Contreras Bustamante, amici curiae.

Thomas M. Sobol and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on brief for Scholars of International Law, amici curiae.

Lawson E. Fite, Michael B. Smith, and Marten Law LLP on brief for Gun Violence Prevention Groups, amici curiae.

Roberta L. Horton, Lucy S. McMillan, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP on brief for Mexican Activists, Scholars, and Victims, amici curiae.

Donna M. Evans, Julie G. Reiser, Molly J. Bowen, Zachary R. Glubiak, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on brief for Law Enforcement Officers, amici curiae.

Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Elizabeth N. Dewar, State Solicitor, Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, William Tong, Attorney General of Connecticut, Kathleen Jennings, Attorney General of Delaware, Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawai'i, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General of Maryland, Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, Keith Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, Raúl Torrez, Attorney General of New Mexico, Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Michelle A. Henry, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General of Rhode Island, and Charity R. Clark, Attorney General of Vermont, on brief for Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, amici curiae.

Roberto J. Gonzalez, Jacob A. Braly, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP on brief for Latin American and Caribbean Nations and NGO, amici curiae.

Ellen V. Leonida, Matthew Borden, Kory J. DeClark, and Braunhagey & Borden LLP on brief for District Attorneys, amici curiae.

Edward V. Colbert III, Scott Harshbarger, and Casner & Edwards, LLP on brief for Professors of Transnational Litigation, amici curiae.

Noel J. Francisco, with whom Anthony J. Dick, Harry S. Graver, Andrew E. Lelling, Jones Day, James M. Campbell, Campbell Conroy & O'Neil, P.C., James W. Porter, II, Porter & Hassinger, P.C., Mark D. Sheridan, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Patricia A. Hartnett, Peter M. Durney, Smith Duggan Cornell & Gollub, Christopher Renzulli, Jeffrey Malsch, Renzulli Law Firm LLC, Jonathan I. Handler, Day Pitney LLP, James Vogts, Andrew A. Lothson, Swanson, Martin & Bell LLP, Nora R. Adukonis, S. Jan Hueber, Litchfield Cavo LLP, Joseph G. Yannetti, Morrison Mahoney LLP, Anthony M. Pisciotti, Danny C. Lallis, Ryan L. Erdreich, Pisciotti Lallis Erdreich, John G. O'Neill, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Michael L. Rice, Katie J. Colopy, and Harrison Law LLC were on brief, for appellees.

Peter M. Torstensen, Jr., Assistant Solicitor General, Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Christian B. Corrigan, Solicitor General, Brent Mead, Deputy Solicitor General, Tanner Baird, Solicitor's Fellow, Steve Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama, Treg Taylor, Attorney General of Alaska, Tim Griffin, Attorney General of Arkansas, Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General of Georgia, Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Brenna Bird, Attorney General of Iowa, Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Jeff Landry, Attorney General of Louisiana, Lynn Fitch, Attorney General of Mississippi, Andrew Bailey, Attorney General of Missouri, John M. Formella, Attorney General of New Hampshire, Alan Wilson, Attorney General of South Carolina, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General of South Dakota, Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General of Utah, Jason Miyares, Attorney General of Virginia, Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General of West Virginia, and Bridget Hill, Attorney General of Wyoming, on brief for State of Montana and 19 Other States, amici curiae.

H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Kenneth A. Klukowski, and Schaerr Jaffe LLP on brief for U.S. SenatorTed Cruz, U.S. Representative Mike Johnson, and 37 other members of Congress, amici curiae.

Christopher A. Kenney, Kenney & Sams, P.C., and Paul B. Stephan on brief for National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., amicus curiae.

Before Kayatta, Gelpí, and Montecalvo, Circuit Judges.

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge.

The government of Mexico brings this lawsuit against seven U.S. gun manufacturers and one gun distributor.¹The district court dismissed Mexico's complaint because it concluded that Mexico's common law claims were barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).That act prohibits the bringing of certain types of lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms in federal and state courts.We agree that the PLCAA's limitations on the types of lawsuits that may be maintained in the United States apply to lawsuits initiated by foreign governments for harm suffered outside the United States.However, we also hold that Mexico's complaint plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA's general prohibition.We therefore reverse the district court's holding that the PLCAA bars Mexico's common law claims, and we remand for further proceedings.Our reasoning follows.

I.

"Because this appeal flows from the district court's order granting a motion to dismiss, we draw the relevant facts from the complaint, accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations as true."Foisie v. Worcester Polytechnic Inst., 967 F.3d 27, 32(1st Cir.2020).

Mexico has strict gun laws that make it "virtually impossible" for criminals to obtain firearms legally sourced in the country.It has one gun store in the entire nation and issues fewer than fifty gun permits a year.Despite these strong domestic regulations, Mexico has the third-most gun-related deaths in the world.The number of gun-related homicides in Mexico grew from fewer than 2,500 in 2003 to approximately 23,000 in 2019.The percentage of homicides committed with a gun similarly rose from fifteen percent in 1997 to sixty-nine percent in 2021.

The increase in gun violence in Mexico correlates with the increase of gun production in the United States, beginning with the end of the United States' assault-weapon ban in 2004.²The complaint details a steady and growing stream of illegal gun trafficking from the United States into Mexico, motivated in large part by the demand of the Mexican drug cartels for military-style weapons.For example, Mexico claims that between seventy and ninety percent of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico were trafficked into the country from the United States.

Mexico's government has borne a variety of harms as a result of this gun-violence epidemic, including but not limited to: costs of additional medical, mental-health, and other services for victims and their families; costs of increased law enforcement, including specialized training for military and police; costs of the increased burden on Mexico's judicial system; diminished property values; and decreased revenues from business investment and economic activity.

In an attempt to redress these harms, Mexico brought this lawsuit in federal district court in Massachusetts, seeking both damages and injunctive relief.Combined, defendants produce more than sixty-eight percent of the U.S. guns trafficked into Mexico, which comes out to between 342,000 and 597,000 guns each year.Mexico alleges that defendants know that their guns are trafficked into Mexico and make deliberate design, marketing, and distribution choices to retain and grow that illegal market and the substantial profits that it produces.

Mexico alleges that one way defendants deliberately facilitate gun trafficking into Mexico is by designing their guns as military-style weapons, knowing that such weapons are particularly sought after by the drug cartels in Mexico.For instance, defendants make assault rifles with high rates of fire, low recoil, and the capacity to hold large amounts of ammunition.The guns can be easily converted into fully automatic weapons.Some of defendants' guns are "weapons of war," such as the "armor-penetrating" Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, which can be (and has been) used to take down aircrafts and armored vehicles.Such weapons are especially attractive to Mexican drug cartels, which frequently engage in military-style combat against Mexican military and police personnel.Defendants also choose to forgo safety features (such as allowing only recognized users to fire the weapon) that might decrease the guns' attractiveness to wrongdoers without diminishing their utility for law-abiding citizens.Similarly, Mexico alleges that defendants intentionally design their guns to have easily removable serial numbers, making them much more attractive to criminals both in the United States and abroad.

Mexico alleges that defendants not only design their guns as military-grade weapons; they also market them as such....