Connect with us

Politics

At Supreme Court, Mexico to Offer Culprit for Cartel Violence: Gun Makers

Published

on

At Supreme Court, Mexico to Offer Culprit for Cartel Violence: Gun Makers

Mexico’s president offered a warning last month in response to news that the Trump administration planned to designate drug cartels as terrorist groups.

“If they declare these criminal groups as terrorists, then we’ll have to expand our U.S. lawsuit,” Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president, said at a news conference.

She was referring to an unusual lawsuit that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday in which Mexico argues U.S. gun manufacturers have aided in the trafficking of weapons used by the cartels.

The case reverses longstanding complaints by President Trump that Mexican cartels have contributed to rising violence in the United States. Instead, Mexico argues the majority of guns found at Mexican crime scenes come from the United States. It seeks some $10 billion in damages from U.S. gun makers.

The dispute comes before the justices at a time of heightened tension between the two countries as the Trump administration leans on Mexico to crack down on illegal migration and cartel organizations. Tariffs on imported goods from Mexico are scheduled to go into effect on Tuesday — the same day the justices are set to consider the guns lawsuit.

Advertisement

President Trump has cited drug trafficking from Mexico as one of the factors driving the decision to impose tariffs. His administration has taken a number of steps to push back on the cartels, including designating more than a half-dozen of the criminal groups as foreign terrorist organizations. That move could result in penalties, including criminal charges, for companies found to be entangled with the cartels, but it has also raised concerns from the Mexican government of a potential violation of Mexico’s sovereignty.

Lawyers for Mexico argue that U.S. manufacturers and gun dealers are complicit in what they call an “iron river” of firearms pouring into the country and arming cartels. They point to strict controls on gun purchases in Mexico, where civilians are not allowed to purchase the types of rapid-fire, powerful military-style weapons favored by the cartels, as evidence that as many as half a million firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year.

“It is far easier and far more efficient to stop the crime gun pipeline at its source and to turn off the spigot,” said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence and a longtime litigator against the gun industry who has worked on the case on behalf of Mexico.

The gun makers, joined by a slew of gun groups including the National Rifle Association, have argued the lawsuit would undermine gun rights in the United States.

“Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s,” the N.R.A. said in a brief in support of the gun makers. “To that end, Mexico aims to destroy the American firearms industry financially.”

Advertisement

The case may be viewed skeptically by the Supreme Court, where the 6-3 conservative supermajority has worked to expand gun rights. But at a time when Mr. Trump has targeted the country, it has offered a forum for Mexico to publicize its counter case that U.S. gun manufacturers share the blame for cartel violence. The Mexican government has also sued several gun stores in Arizona and could expand the effort by filing additional suits.

At a conference last month in Latin America, Pablo Arrocha, a legal adviser for Mexico’s foreign ministry, said that two lawsuits filed so far marked only the beginning of a broader legal strategy to push back against the flow of guns across the border.

For years, Mexico has pushed the United States to do more to curtail the trafficking of American manufactured guns over the border. When Mr. Trump announced he would delay tariffs against Mexico earlier this month, both nations had agreed to address their respective concerns: Mexican authorities promised to work to stem the flow of drugs across the border while U.S. authorities would try to combat gun trafficking.

In recent days, there have been signs of improving relations between the two countries, including when the Mexican government this week sent to the U.S. nearly 30 top cartel operatives wanted by the American authorities. But inside the White House, Mr. Trump’s advisers remain split over whether to take more substantial action in Mexico, including carrying out military strikes against Mexican drug cartels.

A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Mexico first sued multiple gun companies in 2021, arguing that the cartel bloodshed was “the foreseeable result of the defendants’ deliberate actions and business practices.”

A trial court judge dismissed the case, finding it was barred by a 2005 federal law that limits litigation against gun manufacturers and distributors and has provided immunity from actions brought by the families of people killed and injured by their weapons.

A unanimous panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, overturned that decision. They found that the lawsuit met the criteria for a part of the law allowing for litigation in cases where knowing violations of firearms laws are a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Gun makers asked the justices to hear the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141. Lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued Mexico had presented a legal theory that was an “eight-step Rube Goldberg, starting with the lawful production and sale of firearms in the United States and ending with the harms that drug cartels inflict on the Mexican government.”

The lawyers contend the gun makers acted lawfully in the United States and cannot not be held responsible for illegal cartel behavior in Mexico. They cited a 2023 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously that social media companies could not be sued for aiding terrorism because they hosted posts from ISIS.

Advertisement

A trial court judge dismissed Mexico’s case against six of the defendants on other grounds, leaving the Supreme Court’s decision in the case to apply to claims against Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer, and Interstate Arms, a wholesaler.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

Politics

Video: Trump Signs A.I. Executive Order

Published

on

Video: Trump Signs A.I. Executive Order

new video loaded: Trump Signs A.I. Executive Order

transcript

transcript

Trump Signs A.I. Executive Order

Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that would limit individual states in regulating the artificial intelligence industry.

“It’s a big part of the economy. There’s only going to be one winner here, and that’s probably going to be the U.S. or China. You have to have a central source of approval. When they need approvals on things, they have to come to one source. They can’t go to California, New York.” “We’re not going to push back on all of them. For example, kids’ safety — we’re going to protect. We’re not pushing back on that. But we’re going to push back on the most onerous examples of state regulations.”

Advertisement
Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that would limit individual states in regulating the artificial intelligence industry.

By Shawn Paik

December 11, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Kilmar Abrego Garcia seen for first time since release, pledges to ‘continue to fight’ Trump admin

Published

on

Kilmar Abrego Garcia seen for first time since release, pledges to ‘continue to fight’ Trump admin

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Salvadorean migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia vowed Friday to “continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” in his first appearance since being released from federal immigration custody.

Garcia spoke as he appeared for a check-in at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Baltimore, Maryland, as part of the terms of his release.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, right, listens with is brother Cesar Abrego Garcia during a rally ahead of a mandatory check at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Baltimore, on Friday, Dec. 12, 2025, after he was released from detention on Thursday under a judge’s order. (Stephanie Scarbrough/AP)

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia released from the ICE Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Philipsburg, Pa., on Thursday on the grounds that the Trump administration had not obtained the final notice of removal order that is needed to deport him to a third country, including a list of African nations they had previously identified for his removal.

Advertisement

“Since Abrego Garcia’s return from wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been re-detained, again without lawful authority,” Xinis said in her order on Thursday.

The Justice Department is expected to challenge the order.

“This is naked judicial activism by an Obama appointed judge,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a social media post. “This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration would “absolutely” be appealing Xinis’ order, which she described as another instance of “activism” from a federal judge.

Abrego Garcia had been living in Maryland with his wife and children when he was initially arrested.

Advertisement

Abrego Garcia’s case epitomized the political firestorm that has ensued since March, when he was deported to El Salvador and housed in the country’s CECOT mega-prison, in violation of a 2019 court order and in what Trump officials acknowledge was an “administrative error.” Xinis ordered then that Abrego Garcia be “immediately” returned to the U.S.

Upon his return to the United Sates, Abrego Garcia was immediately taken into federal custody and detained on human smuggling charges that stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop.

The Trump administration has claimed he is a member of MS-13, which Abrego Garcia denies.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration previously tried and failed to deport him to the African nations of Liberia, Eswatini, Uganda and Ghana.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: Homeland Security says it doesn’t detain citizens. These brave Californians prove it has

Published

on

Commentary: Homeland Security says it doesn’t detain citizens. These brave Californians prove it has

Call it an accident, call it the plan. But don’t stoop to the reprehensible gaslighting of calling it a lie: It is fact that federal agents have detained and arrested dozens, if not hundreds, of United States citizens as part of immigration sweeps, regardless of what Kristi Noem would like us to believe.

During a congressional hearing Thursday, Noem, our secretary of Homeland Security and self-appointed Cruelty Barbie, reiterated her oft-used and patently false line that only the worst of the worst are being targeted by immigration authorities. That comes after weeks of her department posting online, on its ever-more far-right social media accounts, that claims of American citizens being rounded up and held incommunicado are “fake news” or a “hoax.”

“Stop fear-mongering. ICE does NOT arrest or deport U.S. citizens,” Homeland Security recently posted on the former Twitter.

Tuesday, at a different congressional hearing, a handful of citizens — including two Californians — told their stories of being grabbed by faceless masked men and being whisked away to holding cells where they were denied access to phones, lawyers, medications and a variety of other legal rights.

Advertisement

Their testimony accompanied the release of a congressional report by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in which 22 American citizens, including a dozen from the Golden State, told their own shocking, terrifying tales of manhandling and detentions by what can only be described as secret police — armed agents who wouldn’t identify themselves and often seemed to lack basic training required for safe urban policing.

These stories and the courageous Americans who are stepping forward to tell them are history in the making — a history I hope we regret but not forget.

Immigration enforcement, boosted by unprecedented amounts of funding, is about to ramp up even more. Noem and her agents are reveling in impunity, attempting to erase and rewrite reality as they go — while our Supreme Court crushes precedent and common sense to further empower this presidency. Until the midterms, there is little hope of any check on power.

Under those circumstances, for these folks to put their stories on the record is both an act of bravery and patriotism, because they now know better than most what it means to have the chaotic brutality of this administration focused on them. It’s incumbent upon the rest of us to hear them, and protest peacefully not only rights being trampled, but our government demanding we believe lies.

“I’ve always said that immigrants who are given the great privilege of becoming citizens are also some of the most patriotic people in this country. I know you all love your country. I love our country, and this is not the America that we believe in or that we fought so hard for. Every person, every U.S. citizen, has rights,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said as the hearing began.

Advertisement

L.A. native Andrea Velez, whose detention was reported on by my colleagues when it happened, was one of those putting herself on the line to testify.

Less than 5 feet tall, Velez is a graduate of Cal Poly Pomona who was working in the garment district in June when ICE began its raids. Her mom and teenage sister had just dropped her off when masked men swarmed out of unmarked cars and began chasing brown people. Velez didn’t know what was happening, but when one man charged her, she held up her work bag in defense. The bag did not protect her. Neither did her telling the agents she is a U.S. citizen.

“He handcuffed me without checking my ID. They ignored me as I repeated it again and again that I am a U.S. citizen,” she told committee members. “They did not care.”

Velez, still unsure who the man was who forced her into an SUV, managed to open the door and run to an LAPD officer, begging for help. But when the masked man noticed she was loose, he “ran up screaming, ‘She’s mine’” the congressional report says.

The police officer sent her back to the unmarked car, beginning a 48-hour ordeal that ended with her being charged with assault of a federal officer — charges eventually dropped after her lawyer demanded body camera footage and alleged witness statements. (The minority staff report was released by Rep. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.)

Advertisement

“I never imagined this would be occurring, here, in America,” Velez told lawmakers. “DHS likes … to brand us as criminals, stripping us of our dignity. They want to paint us as the worst of the worst, but the truth is, we are human beings with no criminal record.”

This if-you’re-brown-you’re-going-down tactic is likely to become more common because it is now legal.

In Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, a September court decision, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that it was reasonable for officers to stop people who looked foreign and were engaged in activities associated with undocumented people — such as soliciting work at a Home Depot or attending a Spanish-language event, as long as authorities “promptly” let the person go if they prove citizenship. These are now known as “Kavanaugh stops.”

Disregarding how racist and problematic that policy is, “promptly” seems to be up for debate.

Javier Ramirez, born in San Bernardino, testified as “a proud American citizen who has never known the weight of a criminal record.”

Advertisement

He’s a father of three who was working at his car lot in June when he noticed a strange SUV idling on his private property with a bunch of men inside. When he approached, they jumped out, armed with assault weapons, and grabbed him.

“This was a terrifying situation,” Ramirez said. But then it got worse.

One of the men yelled, “Get him. He’s Mexican!”

On video shot by a bystander, Javier can be heard shouting, “I have my passport!” according to the congressional report, but the agents didn’t care. When Ramirez asked why they were holding him, an agent told him, “We’re trying to figure that out.”

Like Velez, Ramirez was put in detention. A severe diabetic, he was denied medication until he became seriously ill, he told investigators. Though he asked for a lawyer, he was not allowed to contact one — but the interrogation continued.

Advertisement

After his release, five days later, he had to seek further medical treatment. He, too, was charged with assault of a federal agent, along with obstruction and resisting arrest. The bogus charges were also later dropped.

“I should not have to live in fear of being targeted simply for the color of my skin or the other language I speak,” he told the committee. “I share my story not just for myself, but for everyone who has been unjustly treated, for those whose voice has been silenced.”

You know the poem, folks. It starts when “they came” for the vulnerable. Thankfully, though people such as Ramirez and Velez may be vulnerable due to their pigmentation, they are not meek and they won’t be silenced. Our democracy, our safety as a nation of laws, depends on not just hearing their stories, but also standing peacefully against such abuses of power.

Because these abuses only end when the people decide they’ve had enough — not just of the lawlessness, but of the lies that empower it.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending