Ted Cruz, GOP law­mak­ers urge SCOTUS to end ‘Mex­i­co’s assault on our Sec­ond Amend­ment’

FIRST ON FOX: Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, along with oth­er Repub­li­can Con­gress mem­bers, filed an ami­cus brief in sup­port of U.S. gun man­u­fac­tur­ers, urg­ing the Supreme Court “to uphold Amer­i­can Sov­er­eign­ty and the Sec­ond Amend­ment.”

The case, Smith & Wes­son Brands, Inc. v. Esta­dos Unidos Mex­i­canos, stems from a law­suit filed in 2021 by the Mex­i­can gov­ern­ment, in which the gov­ern­ment alleged U.S. gun man­u­fac­tur­ers, like Smith & Wes­son, Ruger and oth­ers, should be liable for gun vio­lence car­ried out by car­tels south of the bor­der, because the com­pa­nies were alleged­ly aware their firearms were being traf­ficked into the coun­try.

“I am lead­ing this ami­cus brief to uphold Amer­i­can sov­er­eign­ty and our Sec­ond Amend­ment. The law­suit filed by Mex­i­co seeks to tram­ple on our Con­sti­tu­tion,” Cruz told Fox News Dig­i­tal. “I look for­ward to the Supreme Court end­ing this mad­ness, putting an end to Mexico’s assault on our Sec­ond Amend­ment, and send­ing a clear mes­sage that Amer­i­can sov­er­eign­ty will not be erod­ed by any coun­try.”

POPULAR GUN MANUFACTURER THANKS ELON MUSK AFTER BEING SUSPENDED BY FACEBOOK

Sens. Mar­sha Black­burn, R‑Tenn., Mike Braun, R‑Ind., Bill Cas­sidy, R‑La., John Cornyn, R‑Texas, and Rick Scott, R‑Fla., are just sev­er­al Sen­ate mem­bers join­ing Cruz in fil­ing the brief. Reps. Dar­rell Issa, R‑Calif., Clay Hig­gins, R‑La., Pete Ses­sions, R‑Texas, and Clau­dia Ten­ney, R‑N.Y., have also joined Cruz’s brief. 

“I joined Sen­a­tor Cruz and my House GOP col­leagues in this case because it was the right thing to do and the only choice to make,” Issa said in a state­ment. “This law­suit has uni­fied our friends and allies almost as nev­er before, includ­ing from the Nation­al Shoot­ing Sports Foun­da­tion and the Firearms Reg­u­la­to­ry Account­abil­i­ty Coali­tion, and now the Supreme Court will lis­ten to our peti­tions to hear this case.”

BIDEN-HARRIS POLICIES MAY BE BEHIND SURGE IN REPUBLICAN WOMEN OWNING GUNS, CONCEALED CARRY ADVOCATE SAYS

“This is a land­mark legal ques­tion and weighs whether to allow for­eign gov­ern­ments to vio­late Amer­i­can sov­er­eign­ty, bank­rupt our firearms indus­try with law­fare, and under­mine our Sec­ond Amend­ment rights. Today, we reaf­firm our com­mit­ment to our con­sti­tu­tion­al free­doms. Our cause will pre­vail,” Issa con­tin­ued.

The fil­ing slams the law­suit as a whole, call­ing it “an attempt to coopt the pow­er of the fed­er­al judi­cia­ry to both cir­cum­vent the role of Con­gress and usurp the role of the Exec­u­tive.” The fil­ing con­tin­ues on to say that the suit dis­re­gards the “respec­tive roles” assigned by the Con­sti­tu­tion to the fed­er­al branch­es and thus proves to be “an affront” to Amer­i­can sov­er­eign­ty. 

JUDGE REJECTS 2ND AMENDMENT ARGUMENT FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LIVING IN OHIO CHARGED OVER POSSESSION OF 170 GUNS

The brief also says that the right to bear arms under the Sec­ond Amend­ment is “fun­da­men­tal to our scheme of ordered lib­er­ty,” quot­ing a sep­a­rate Supreme Court case. Via the present law­suit, the brief says Mex­i­co is attempt­ing to impose “mas­sive costs and injunc­tive relief” against Amer­i­can gun man­u­fac­tur­ers, some­thing “no pub­lic body in the Unit­ed States could do via leg­is­la­tion or reg­u­la­tion.”

More than two dozen top Repub­li­can pros­e­cu­tors had pre­vi­ous­ly urged the Court to take up the case in May of this year. That ami­cus brief, filed by Mon­tana Attor­ney Gen­er­al Austin Knud­sen along with oth­er GOP col­leagues, urged the high court to hear the case in order to stop “a for­eign sovereign’s use of Amer­i­can courts to effec­tive­ly lim­it the rights of Amer­i­can cit­i­zens.”

Mex­i­co’s law­suit was ini­tial­ly dis­missed by a Mass­a­chu­setts fed­er­al judge, but Mex­i­co suc­cess­ful­ly appealed its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Cir­cuit, with the sup­port of Cal­i­for­nia and oth­er Demo­c­rat-led states.

The high court set oral argu­ments for the case for Feb­ru­ary 2025.