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

Decided June 5, 2025. Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court.

Docket 23-1141 · 605 U.S. 280 (2025) · Cited 17 times

Holding

Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U. S. C. §7901(a)(3), bars the lawsuit.

The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. Read the official opinion for authority.

How the Justices voted

Decided 9–0.

“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. The lineup is the syllabus’s disposition of who wrote and joined each opinion. Source: the opinion’s syllabus (supremecourt.gov).

Precedents cited

Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.

• Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh · 598 U.S. 471 (2023)
• Direct Sales Co. v. United States · 319 U.S. 703 (1943)
• Rosemond v. United States · 572 U.S. 65 (2014)
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal · 556 U.S. 662 (2009)
• United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · 200 U.S. 321 (1906)
• Nye & Nissen v. United States · 336 U.S. 613 (1949)
• United States v. Falcone · 311 U.S. 205 (1940)
• United States v. Jin Fuey Moy · 241 U.S. 394 (1916)

Official text

Read the official opinion (PDF, supremecourt.gov)

Explore from here

Elena Kagan’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court

Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (2025). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-08-15. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).