The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge from the gun industry against a New York law that permits lawsuits against firearm manufacturers, wholesalers, and dealers for endangering public safety through the sale of guns and ammunition.
Court Declines to Hear Appeal
The justices declined to hear an appeal filed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade group, contesting a lower court ruling that upheld the law, which New York designates as a public nuisance statute. Gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, and Sturm joined the appeal, arguing that the state law unconstitutionally conflicts with federal law. In 2025, the Supreme Court had spared Smith & Wesson from a lawsuit by Mexico’s government accusing the company of aiding illegal gun trafficking to drug cartels.
Reactions from the Industry
The NSSF expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court declined to hear its case. “NSSF sincerely believes that those criminals who illegally misuse lawful products should be held responsible for the harms they cause when they commit their crimes,” said Mark Oliva, a spokesperson, in an email. “Holding the firearm industry responsible for the criminal misuse of a firearm is akin to holding Ford Motor Company responsible for damages from drunk-driving crimes.”
Details of the New York Law
Signed in 2021 by former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, the New York law mandates that the gun industry implement reasonable safeguards to prevent gun trafficking, theft, and the use of “straw purchasers” who buy firearms for others. It also permits civil lawsuits by New York state and local officials, as well as private citizens. New York Attorney General Letitia James has stated that the law helps combat the “scourge” of gun violence.
Legal Arguments
The NSSF argued that the state law is preempted by the 2005 federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields the gun industry from civil liability when its products are used in crimes. Under the US Constitution’s supremacy clause, federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws. However, the Manhattan-based Second US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York’s law last year. Circuit Judge Eunice Lee, appointed by former Democratic President Joe Biden, wrote that Congress intended to preserve “at least some causes of action” when a defendant’s knowing violation of federal or state firearms sales and marketing laws was a proximate cause of harm.
Broader Implications
The appeal did not involve the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. However, the trade group argued that laws like New York’s threaten such rights by allowing lawsuits that could impose “crushing liability” on companies for crimes they had no part in. It also claimed that a “predicate exception” in the federal law subjects the industry to liability only for failures to comply with specific obligations within their control. “The decision below blows a gaping hole in a statute that Congress enacted for the express purpose of protecting the firearms industry from exactly the kinds of lawsuits New York seeks to usher back in,” the group said.
New York countered that the predicate exception allows liability for some “downstream acts” of third parties and noted that at least nine states have passed similar laws to satisfy the exception. The gun industry appeal was supported by the National Rifle Association, 24 Republican state attorneys general, and several dozen Republican members of Congress.
The Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in three major decisions since 2008, when it recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
