The battle over who bears responsibility for gun violence took another turn on Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in a challenge to New York’s controversial law allowing lawsuits against members of the firearms industry.
By refusing to hear the case, the nation’s highest court left standing a lower court ruling that upheld New York’s public nuisance law, a measure that opens the door for legal action against gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers accused of contributing to threats to public safety through the sale and marketing of firearms and ammunition.
The challenge was brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry’s leading trade association. A coalition of major gunmakers—including Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer and Sturm—joined the effort, arguing that New York’s law clashes with federal protections enacted to shield the industry from liability when firearms are later used in criminal acts.
Industry representatives expressed frustration with the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the dispute. The NSSF maintained that responsibility for gun-related crimes should rest with offenders rather than companies that manufacture or sell lawful products. The group argued that blaming firearm makers for criminal misuse is comparable to holding automobile manufacturers or alcohol producers liable for drunk-driving incidents.
Enacted in 2021 under former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, the law requires firearm businesses to take reasonable steps to prevent gun trafficking, theft and straw purchases—transactions in which someone buys a weapon on behalf of another person. It also empowers state and local authorities, along with private citizens, to pursue civil claims.
New York officials have defended the statute as a tool to combat persistent gun violence, arguing that it targets irresponsible industry practices rather than lawful firearm ownership.
Central to the dispute was the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), passed in 2005. The firearms industry contended that the federal law preempts New York’s measure by broadly protecting gun companies from lawsuits stemming from criminal misuse of their products.
However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise, finding that Congress preserved certain legal claims through an exception that allows lawsuits when violations of firearm-related laws contribute directly to harm. The appeals court concluded that New York’s statute fits within that framework.
The trade group warned that allowing such lawsuits could expose firearm companies to enormous financial risks and encourage litigation over crimes they neither committed nor controlled. According to the industry, the lower court’s interpretation weakens protections that Congress specifically created for gun manufacturers and sellers.
New York countered that the federal law’s exception permits liability in some circumstances involving the actions of third parties and noted that several other states have adopted similar measures.
The case drew support for the gun industry from the National Rifle Association, more than two dozen Republican state attorneys general and numerous Republican lawmakers.
Although the Supreme Court has expanded Second Amendment protections in a series of landmark rulings over the past two decades, this dispute did not directly address the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Instead, it centered on the extent to which states can use civil litigation to police conduct within the firearms marketplace.
With the Supreme Court stepping aside, New York’s law remains in force, preserving a legal pathway that could shape future efforts by states seeking to hold parts of the gun industry accountable for practices linked to gun-related harm.
