The U.S. Supreme Court was set on Tuesday to hear a bid by two American gun companies to throw out the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States.

Officially, the Mexican government sued American gun manufacturers, blaming them for “aiding and abetting” the trafficking of firearms to drug cartels. But its real beef is with the Second Amendment, which prohibits the sort of sweeping gun restrictions that Mexican officials think public safety requires.

The lower appellate court ruled that Mexico had “plausibly” claimed that the manufacturers did aid and abet the illegal trafficking of guns “by passing along guns knowing that the purchasers include unlawful buyers, and making design and marketing decisions targeted towards those exact individuals.”

The country claims Smith & Wesson and other gunmakers are turning a blind eye to hundreds of thousands of high-powered weapons made in the U.S that are illegally trafficked into in the hands of Mexican cartels.

The dispute focuses on whether Mexico can hold U.S. manufacturers liable for gun violence and comes amid rising tensions between the countries.

The Mexican government's lawsuit against U.S. gun companies is set to go before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled on Tuesday with a bid by two American gun companies to throw out the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States.

On March 4th, hours after Donald Trump imposed tariffs of 25% on Mexican exports to the United States, Mexico’s government stood before the Supreme Court of the United States to argue that American gunmakers should be held liable for deaths caused by Mexican gangs using the weapons they manufacture.

Mexico’s 2021 lawsuit accuses Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms of knowingly supplying weapons to dealers who sell to traffickers. The companies’ lawyer compared the case to holding Budweiser liable for drunk driving,