WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed likely Tuesday to block a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies have fueled cartel gun violence.

Both liberal and conservative justices appeared skeptical that the claims could clear hurdles in U.S. law that largely shield gun makers from lawsuits when their products are used in crime.

Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations where gun companies are accused of violating the law.

An attorney for Mexico argued the case over economic harm linked to gun violence is was still in its early stages and should be allowed go forward.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, though, pointed to arguments that many products can misused, and a flood of lawsuits could hurt the U.S. economy. “That’s a real concern, I think, for me, about accepting your theory,” he said.

Justice Samuel Alito raised questions about whether the U.S. could file suit against Mexico for “illegal conduct” it links to activities there.

The arguments coincidently come as President Donald Trump’s long-threatened tariffs against Mexico and Canada go into effect. Trump has said the tariffs are aimed in part on forcing the two U.S. neighbors to step up their fight against fentanyl trafficking and stop illegal immigration.

The case began four years ago, when the Mexican government filed its blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock Inc.

Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country’s powerful drug cartels every year.

The Mexican government says 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market.

The companies reject Mexico’s claims, arguing the country comes nowhere close to showing they’re responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence.

A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. They found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly violating the law in their sales or marketing.

That exception has come up in other cases.

The victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gun maker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used on the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed.

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling, expected by late June, could also affect other similar lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. That aspect of the case didn’t appear to be a heavy focus during oral arguments, however. Smith & Wesson attorney Noel Francisco said in a statement that the exceptions aren’t relevant because Mexico can’t show a direct connection between the companies business practices and cartel violence.