Supreme Court lets New York gun trafficking lawsuit law stand

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the gun industry’s challenge left New York’s firearms accountability law standing and kept alive one of the strongest state-level tools aimed at forcing manufacturers and dealers to police diversion into illegal markets. By declining review on June 15, 2026, the justices left in place a July 2025 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that upheld the law in National Shooting Sports Foundation v. James.

New York enacted the statute in July 2021 as S.7196/A.6762 and codified it as Article 39-DDDD of the state’s General Business Law. The measure created a public-nuisance framework focused on the dangers to public safety and health from the sale, manufacturing, importing and marketing of firearms. It authorizes enforcement by the New York attorney general, local government lawyers and a private right of action for any person, firm, corporation or association damaged by violations.

The law also requires gun-industry members to use reasonable safeguards against trafficking, theft and straw purchasing. Letitia James said when the law was enacted that it was designed to restore the ability of states and localities to bring civil liability actions against firearm manufacturers and sellers. Supporters have since used it in major litigation, including claims tied to the Buffalo mass shooting and a case against ghost-gun sellers.

The challenge that reached the Supreme Court came from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and 14 industry members, including Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger. Their argument was built around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, enacted by Congress in 2005, which the industry says preempts New York’s law. New York countered that PLCAA contains an exception for suits based on knowing violations of state or federal laws applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms, and said that exception fits its statute.

The high court’s silence matters because it leaves manufacturers and dealers exposed to a law that can produce both damages claims and court-ordered changes in business practices. It also gives other states a practical roadmap: write a narrower accountability law, anchor it in state nuisance and consumer-protection theories, and tie liability to failures in trafficking controls rather than to the mere lawful sale of guns.

The refusal to intervene also fits a pattern. In June 2025, the court barred Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. under PLCAA, showing it will enforce federal immunity when a claim falls squarely within the statute. But by letting New York’s law stand, the court signaled that broader state efforts to impose industry duties may survive, even without Congress revisiting federal gun-liability law.