The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico against leading U.S. gun manufacturers, accusing their business practices of contributing to cartel-related gun violence.

The gun makers deny these allegations and have appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to proceed, despite U.S. laws generally protecting gun manufacturers from such suits.

The outcome of the case could also impact a legal precedent that helped the families of victims in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting secure a $73 million settlement from Remington, the gun manufacturer involved.

The case is coinciding with the day President Donald Trump’s long-threatened tariffs against Mexico and Canada went into effect, which has caused uncertainty in global markets and prompted retaliatory measures.

Here’s an overview of the case:

Why did Mexico sue U.S. gun companies?
Mexico has strict gun laws, with only one store authorized to sell firearms, but thousands of guns are smuggled in by powerful drug cartels. The Mexican government claims that 70% of these weapons originate in the U.S. and argues that gun manufacturers knowingly sold firearms to traffickers, capitalizing on this illegal market.

The lawsuit targets major manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, and Glock. The case is still in its early stages, and Mexico would need to prove its allegations if the court rules in its favor.

What do the gun companies say?
The gun makers argue there is no evidence supporting claims that the industry facilitates trafficking and dispute Mexico’s data on the origin of the firearms. They contend that it is the responsibility of the Mexican government, not U.S. manufacturers, to enforce laws and combat crime.

Under a 20-year-old law, the gun industry is generally shielded from civil lawsuits related to crimes committed with firearms. However, Mexico argues that the law does not apply to crimes committed outside the U.S.

The gun companies are urging the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the lawsuit could proceed under an exception to the shield law when companies are accused of knowingly violating the law.

What happens next?
This exception has been relevant in other cases. For instance, victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting argued that it applied to their lawsuit against the gun maker, alleging it violated state law in marketing the AR-15 rifle used in the tragedy that killed 20 first graders and six educators.

The Supreme Court declined to hear that case, and after the $73 million settlement, the families expressed hope that it would lead to increased safety and accountability.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the current case could either narrow or close this legal pathway, depending on how the justices decide.