Abbe R. Gluck, J.D., is Professor of Law and the Founding Faculty Director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School and Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine. Alexander Nabavi-Noori is a J.D. Candidate at Yale Law School, Class of 2021. Susan Wang is a J.D. Candidate at Yale Law School, Class of 2021.
J Law Med Ethics. 2020 Dec;48(4_suppl):90-97. doi: 10.1177/1073110520979406.
Litigation cannot solve a public health crisis. But litigation can be an effective complementary tool to regulation by increasing the salience of a public health issue, eliciting closely guarded information to move public opinion, and prompting legislative action. From tobacco to opioids, litigants have successfully turned to courts for monetary relief, to initiate systemic change, and to hold industry accountableFor years, litigators have been trying to push firearm suits into their own litigation moment. But litigation against the gun industry poses special challenges. Not only has the regulatory regime failed to prevent a public safety hazard, Congress has consistently underfunded and understaffed the relevant regulatory actors. And in 2005 it legislatively immunized the gun industry from suit with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).This paper surveys the field of litigation in response to gun violence, tracking the limited successes of victims and stakeholders suing the gun industry. We find that victories remain confined to individual actors and unlike high-impact public litigations in other areas, aggregate class actions and major public litigation led by state attorneys general are noticeably absent in the firearm context.
诉讼无法解决公共卫生危机，但它可以作为监管的有效补充手段，通过提高公共卫生问题的显著性，引出被严密保护的信息以改变公众意见，并促使立法行动。从烟草到阿片类药物，诉讼当事人成功地将金钱救济、系统变革和追究行业责任诉诸法庭。多年来，诉讼当事人一直试图将枪支诉讼推向自己的诉讼时刻。但是，针对枪支行业的诉讼带来了特殊的挑战。不仅监管制度未能防止公共安全隐患，国会还一直对相关监管机构资金不足和人手不足。2005 年，《保护合法商业枪支贸易法》（PLCAA）立法豁免了枪支行业的诉讼。本文调查了枪支暴力诉讼领域，跟踪了受害者和利益相关者起诉枪支行业的有限成功。我们发现，胜利仍然局限于个别行为者，与其他领域的高影响力公共诉讼不同，在枪支领域，集体诉讼和由州检察长牵头的重大公共诉讼明显缺席。
