Politics
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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 Announces U.S. Will Sell F-35s to Saudi Arabia
new video loaded: Trump Announces U.S. Will Sell F-35s to Saudi Arabia
transcript
transcript
Trump Announces U.S. Will Sell F-35s to Saudi Arabia
President Trump told reporters on Monday that he planned to sell F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, against the guidance from national security officials in his own administration. The Pentagon has expressed concerns that this could create an opportunity for China to steal the advanced fighter jets’ technology.
-
Reporter: “Are you planning to sell F-35s to Saudi Arabia? And also, are you looking at doing a similar security agreement like you did with —” “Yeah, no, I am planning on doing that. They want to buy. They’ve been a great ally. They’ve got to like us very much. Look at the Iran situation, what we did in terms of obliterating — we obliterated their nuclear capability. Yeah, I will say that we will be doing that. We’ll be selling F-35s.”
By Jamie Leventhal
November 17, 2025
Politics
Duckworth fires staffer who claimed to be attorney for detained illegal immigrant with criminal history
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A staffer for Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., has been fired after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said he misrepresented himself as the attorney of a detained illegal immigrant to facilitate the man’s release.
Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons told the Illinois Democrat that her staffer, Edward York, claimed he was legally representing Jose Ismeal Ayuzo Sandoval.
Sandoval, a 40-year-old illegal immigrant, had a DUI conviction and was previously deported four times to Mexico.
According to ICE, the staffer made the claim to federal agents after entering an ICE facility in St. Louis, Illinois, on Oct. 29.
DHS CALLS OUT NBC AFFILIATE FOR HIDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIME HISTORY IN ARREST STORY
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., speaks to the press after meeting with demonstrators protesting outside an immigration processing and detention facility on October 10, 2025 in Broadview, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
“At approximately 1:29 p.m., an individual identified as Edward York, who, according to publicly available information, is employed as a Constituent Outreach Coordinator for your Senate office, entered the field office lobby, and in a discussion with a federal officer, claimed to be Mr. Ayuzo’s attorney. Mr. York demanded to speak with his ‘client,’” the Nov. 12 letter from ICE states.
“This staff member allegedly did so to gain access to the detainee and seek his release from custody, and he accomplished it by falsifying an official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) form.”
In a letter on Monday, Duckworth addressed Lyons and said that the staffer was fired.
SENATE DEM DICK DURBIN ACCUSES TRUMP ADMIN OF ‘TERRORIZING PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES’
“Upon reviewing the matter, I can confirm that neither I nor my leadership team was aware of, authorized or directed what your letter describes as the employee’s conduct,” the message read.
Duckworth then confirmed that her office “terminated the employment of said employee, effective November 17, 2025.”
Lyons had given the senator a Monday deadline to provide answers about the staffer’s employment and whether he knowingly lied on government documents.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on February 27, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
“It is my sincere hope that you will advocate on behalf of your constituents who have been victimized by illegal alien crime and work with DHS to remove these criminals from the United States,” Lyons wrote on Nov. 12.
Fox News’ Michael Tobin, Leo Briceno and Kyle Schmidbauer contributed to this report.
Politics
Justice Department sues to block laws restricting masked, unidentified law enforcement officers in California
SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.
The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.
Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.
“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”
The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.
The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.
“Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”
Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.
“The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”
Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.
The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.
In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.
“Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”
-
Nebraska1 week agoWhere to watch Nebraska vs UCLA today: Time, TV channel for Week 11 game
-
Hawaii1 week agoMissing Kapolei man found in Waipio, attorney says
-
Vermont6 days agoNorthern Lights to dazzle skies across these US states tonight – from Washington to Vermont to Maine | Today News
-
New Jersey1 week agoPolice investigate car collision, shooting in Orange, New Jersey
-
West Virginia7 days ago
Search for coal miner trapped in flooded West Virginia mine continues for third day
-
Seattle, WA1 week agoSoundgarden Enlist Jim Carrey and Seattle All-Stars for Rock Hall 2025 Ceremony
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoHere’s the snow forecast for Metro Detroit heading into next week
-
Louisiana1 week agoLouisiana high school football final scores, results — November 7, 2025