News Release

May 9, 2001

Tort suits against gun industry are "extortion parading as law"
New study calls for reform to prevent litigation from substituting for legislation

WASHINGTON-Over two dozen civil cases against gun manufacturers are still working their way through the courts, leftovers from a concerted effort by public officials to force concessions from gun makers after the failures of legislative efforts to restrict and regulate guns. According to a new study by the Cato Institute, those government-sponsored tort suits are a major threat to the rule of law, and reforms are required to prevent federal and local authorities from using the courts to bully unpopular-but legal-industries into changing their practices.

In "Pistol Whipped: Baseless Lawsuits, Foolish Laws," Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, argues that three tactics used by public officials against gun makers-suing in multiple jurisdictions to escalate the defender's costs, employing contingency fee lawyers, and using the judicial branch to bypass the legislative branch-"are just part of a scheme to force gun makers to adopt policies that legislatures have wisely rejected." This violates the separation of powers doctrine and demonstrates to future wealthy defendants "that groundless legal theories are good enough when the coercive power of multiple government entities is arrayed against an unpopular industry," Levy says.

During the Clinton administration, officials like former Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo sought to deluge the gun industry with lawsuits-Rendell calling for dozens of cities to file concurrent suits, Cuomo seeking to organize legal action from roughly 3,200 separate housing authorities. The goal was to impose enormous legal fees on the defendants and force a settlement, even though the legal arguments used were baseless, says Levy. "One effective way to stop such thievery is to implement a 'government pays' rule for legal fees when a governmental unit is the losing plaintiff in a civil case," he argues. Such reform would ensure that "defendants in government suits will be able to resist meritless cases that are brought by the state solely to ratchet up the pressure for a large financial settlement," Levy says.

"'Government pays' becomes ever more urgent with the recent emergence of an insidious relationship between the plaintiffs' bar and some government officials," Levy says. Tort suits against the gun industry "were concocted by a handful of private attorneys who entered into contingency fee contracts with the government," creating a "potential for corruption" akin to paying state attorneys per conviction or state troopers per speeding ticket. The proper approach, Levy says, is to enforce the gun laws already on the books and leave legislating to the legislatures.

"Pistol Whipped: Baseless Lawsuits, Foolish Laws"