The Supreme Court has declined to take up a challenge to a New York law that allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers for harm caused by their products. This decision leaves the 2026 law intact, permitting various legal claims under state law for conduct that endangers public health.
The law was specifically designed to bypass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Acta 2005 federal law that shields gunmakers from liability. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means the law will remain in effect, although future legal challenges could still arise.
The Legal Battle Over Gunmaker Accountability
The challenge to the New York law was brought by several gun manufacturers, including Glock and Smith & Wessonas well as the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The plaintiffs argued that the state statute exploits a loophole in the federal law, allowing lawsuits when a defendant ‘knowingly violated’ laws related to the sale or marketing of firearms, leading to harm.
If the New York measure were allowed to stand, the gunmakers’ lawyers contended, it would render the 2005 federal law meaningless. A federal judge in New York and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled against the gunmakers, upholding the law’s validity.
The Supreme Court’s Stance on Gun Rights
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has generally supported gun rights. As recently as last year, the court invoked the federal law to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against gun manufacturers. Despite this, the court chose not to intervene in the New York case, leaving the law in place.
New York Attorney General Letitia Jamesa Democrat, urged the court not to take up the case. She argued in court papers that the federal law ‘allows gun industry members to be held liable for the downstream acts of third parties in some circumstances.’
The Implications of the Decision
The New York law requires the gun industry to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent gun trafficking, theft, and the use of ‘straw purchasers.’ It allows civil lawsuits by state and local officials, as well as members of the public. The law was signed by former Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2026.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation argued that the law is preempted by the federal law, which shields the gun industry from civil liability when its products are used in crimes. Under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York’s law last year. Circuit Judge Eunice Leean appointee of former President Joe Bidenwrote 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.
Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobsan appointee of former President George H.W. Bushconcurred but criticized state lawmakers for creating a broad public nuisance statute that applies solely to the gun industry.
The appeal did not hinge on the Constitution’s Second Amendment protections. However, the trade group argued that laws like New York’s imperil such rights by allowing lawsuits that could saddle companies with ‘crushing liability’ for crimes they had nothing to do with.
The Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in three major decisions since 2008, when it found that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.