Supreme Court to Rule on Trucker’s Use of Racketeering Law Against CBD Firm After Positive Drug Test
Did consuming a CBD supplement that resulted in a positive drug test negatively impact a truck driver’s earning potential? Or did it create a ‘chemical bodily invasion?’ These are the key questions in the Supreme Court case.
WASHINGTON – On Tuesday, the Supreme Court discussed whether a truck driver can employ anti-racketeering law to reclaim lost earnings after he claims he unknowingly consumed a product that contained THC, the active compound in marijuana.
Douglas Horn intends to file a lawsuit against the makers of Dixie X, a “CBD-dominant medicine” that was marketed as THC-free, after losing his job due to a failed drug test.
By invoking the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Horn could potentially receive triple damages and cover his legal costs if he prevails in court.
However, Medical Marijuana Inc., which produces Dixie X, argued that RICO cannot be utilized for personal injury claims but is limited to damages concerning “business or property.”
“It’s a physical, chemical intrusion into the body,” stated attorney Lisa Blatt, representing the company, referring to Horn’s claims. “In my perspective, that’s a physical injury.”
Horn argues that the damage was to his capacity to earn an income.
“We believe losing a job is a quintessential injury to business,” said Easha Anand, Horn’s lawyer, as she presented the case to the Supreme Court. “You are no longer able to pursue your profession.”
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New York, sided with Horn, affirming that the straightforward interpretation of “business” permits Horn to pursue legal action.
During over an hour of arguments on Tuesday, some conservative justices expressed worry that permitting this interpretation could lead to an excessive number of lawsuits that the law was not meant to accommodate.
This concern was also echoed in a legal brief from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which urged the court to rule against Horn, cautioning that it could lead to “devastating consequences” by increasing the risk of lawsuits for businesses.
Initially designed to combat organized crime, RICO was rarely applied until a Supreme Court ruling in 1981 widened its interpretation to cover both legitimate and illegitimate businesses, according to Jeffrey Grell, a legal expert who provided an overview of the case for the American Bar Association.
However, following a surge of RICO cases flooding the federal courts, the Supreme Court has sought to restrict its use.
On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the exclusion of personal injuries from the law was intended to clarify its boundaries.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether Horn was merely reframing a personal injury as a business-related injury to bypass that restriction.
This, he argued, could drastically alter how lawsuits for damages are filed.
Anand responded, citing that utilizing RICO still involves considerable thresholds.
Injured parties must demonstrate a pattern of racketeering activities and prove that these illegal actions caused their injury, she noted.
Additionally, plaintiffs cannot claim damages for pain and suffering, which Anand pointed out typically comprises a significant portion of the claims made.
“Defendants have continuously approached this court and warned, ‘The sky will fall if you interpret RICO based on its plain text,'” she asserted. “But the sky hasn’t fallen.”
