A unanimous Supreme Court dismissed Mexico's claim that U.S. gun manufacturers aided and abetted the pipeline of weapons from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels.
"Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers," Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, wrote for the court.
At issue was Mexico's claim that Smith & Wesson and other gunmakers were turning a blind eye to hundreds of thousands of high-powered weapons made in the U.S that are illegally trafficked into in the hands of Mexican cartels.
Mexico argued that it is a country where guns are supposed to be difficult to get. There is just one store in the whole country where guns can be bought legally, yet the nation is awash in illegal guns sold most often to the cartels. Mexico maintains that gushing pipeline of what it calls "crime guns" comes from the United States where manufacturers know which dealers are the bad actors.
"You can't hide behind the middleman and pretend like you don't know what's happening," Jonathan Lowy, co-counsel for Mexico and president of Global Action on Gun Violence, told NPR earlier this year.
But the gun industry found that argument flawed.
Lawrence Keane, counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry, told NPR earlier this year that every sale to a consumer by a licensed retailer is approved by the federal government, and every transaction requires a federally mandated background check.
Mexico is arguing that a "lawful distribution system that's approved under federal law … is aiding and abetting cartels," Keane said. "If that was all that was required, Budweiser would be responsible for drunk driving accidents all across the United States, and apparently including Mexico."
Ultimately, a unanimous Supreme Court agreed.
In reality it's supposed to be even more strict. They're trying to get around this by having a private company own the cameras. If the government owned the cameras, they would need to get a warrant with a sufficiently narrow target from a judge before initiating electronic surveillance to track the targets' location.
If something is really going on which justifies it, getting a warrant is trivial and probable cause is a low bar.