The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to New York’s controversial gun industry liability law, allowing the state measure to remain in force and preserving a legal pathway for lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and distributors.
The decision, announced Monday, leaves intact a 2021 New York law that permits legal claims against gunmakers whose business practices are alleged to contribute to threats to public health and safety. The law was designed to hold firearms companies accountable in certain cases involving gun violence and unlawful firearm use.
The measure has been closely watched nationwide because it was crafted to navigate around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law that generally shields gun manufacturers and sellers from liability when their products are used in crimes committed by third parties.
New York lawmakers argued that the state law falls within an exception contained in the federal statute. That exception allows lawsuits when a firearm manufacturer or seller knowingly violates laws related to the sale or marketing of firearms and that violation directly contributes to harm.
The legal challenge was brought by several major firearms manufacturers, including Glock and Smith & Wesson, along with the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The plaintiffs argued that New York was attempting to exploit a loophole in federal law and warned that allowing the statute to stand could effectively undermine the liability protections Congress intended to provide the firearms industry.
Gun industry advocates contended that the law would expose manufacturers to costly litigation for criminal acts committed by individuals who misuse firearms, potentially weakening the federal protections established under PLCAA.
Lower federal courts rejected those arguments. A federal district judge upheld the law, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in July 2025, concluding that the New York statute could proceed without conflicting with federal law.
By declining to review the case, the Supreme Court left those rulings in place. The court did not provide an explanation for its decision, which is standard practice when it denies petitions for review.
The outcome is notable because the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has generally issued decisions supportive of gun rights in recent years. In 2025, the court relied on the same federal liability shield law to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against several U.S. gun manufacturers.
New York Attorney General Letitia James welcomed the law’s continued enforcement and argued in court filings that federal law already contemplates situations in which members of the firearms industry can be held liable for downstream harms caused by third parties.
While the Supreme Court’s action represents a significant victory for New York, the legal battle may not be over. The law could still face future constitutional or statutory challenges as litigation against firearm manufacturers moves through the courts.
The decision is expected to influence ongoing debates across the United States over gun industry accountability, firearm regulation and the extent of legal protections available to manufacturers under federal law.
