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

Majority reasoning

The majority held that to "aid and abet" a crime, a person must take an affirmative step to help a specific crime succeed and must intend for it to succeed — it is not enough to simply know that some customers misuse a product. The Court reasoned that Mexico's complaint fell short on all three of its main theories: first, the allegation that manufacturers knowingly sold to "bad apple" dealers failed because the manufacturers sell through independent middlemen distributors and Mexico never identified which specific dealers were breaking the law; second, the manufacturers' failure to impose controls on their distribution networks is a passive omission, not an active act of assistance, and omissions rarely support aiding-and-abetting liability; and third, the design and marketing of widely legal, popular firearms — even those with Spanish-language names or military-style features — cannot constitute aiding and abetting simply because cartel members also prefer those products. The Court drew on its prior ruling in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, which held that a company providing generally available goods or services does not become an accomplice to crime merely by knowing that some users misuse those goods, and contrasted that with Direct Sales Co. v. United States, where a pharmacy was found liable because it actively stimulated a known lawbreaker's purchases far beyond normal levels. The majority concluded that accepting Mexico's theory would effectively swallow PLCAA's general rule, which Congress enacted specifically to stop lawsuits of this kind.