The Supreme Court is split over a case concerning a trucker who lost his job after using CBD elixir.
A judgment in the case, anticipated for the following year, could determine whether Americans can secure significant compensation under an anti-gang law if they lose their job due to injuries caused by merchandise.
The dispute at hand concerned whether Douglas Horn was eligible to file his lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which authorizes civil lawsuits and grants plaintiffs the opportunity to collect triple damages for business or property damage.
Following approximately an hour and a half of discussions on Tuesday, it seemed the case could potentially lead to a split within the court's conservative judges, some of whom showed sympathy towards Horn's claims, while others expressed caution about allowing individuals to pursuit substantial damages for common injuries.
Medical Marijuana Inc., and other businesses involved in selling the CBD product, contended that Horn's injury was a personal matter – which is inconsistent with the law's requirement for business or property harm. This point was met with strong opposition from the court's liberal judges, particularly Justice Elena Kagan.
Kagan argued, "If you're harmed when you lose a job, aren't you injured in your business then?" She went on to explain that the law only states that if an individual has suffered an injury due to a RICO violation in their business (which includes employment), they are entitled to triple damages.
However, several conservative judges, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns about the potential surge of RICO lawsuits for relatively minor injuries if Horn's position is upheld.
Kavanaugh described Horn's case as representing "a significant, truly radical shift in how tort lawsuits are brought throughout the United States."
Horn worked as a commercial trucker for a span of 14 years yet suffered severe pain following a serious accident. He discovered an advertisement for a new "CBD-rich medicine" titled "Dixie X" that claimed to contain no THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana.
Horn attempted the product in 2012 and failed his drug test shortly afterwards.
He filed a lawsuit in the Western District of New York in 2015, alleging in part that Medical Marijuana Inc., and companies involved in the distribution of Dixie X, violated the Controlled Substances Act and engaged in mail and wire fraud.
The federal court ruled against Horn, but the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed his lawsuit to proceed. The company appealed to the Supreme Court a year ago, arguing that the RICO Act never intended to include "ordinary product liability" suits.
Grantsing Horn the right to sue, the company argued, would significantly increase both the quantity and range of "civil RICO" lawsuits.
President Richard Nixon established the federal RICO Act in 1970 to provide prosecutors with enhanced powers against organized crime family leaders. Several states have also adopted their own versions of the law. In Georgia, prosecutors are attempting to apply a state RICO law to prosecute former President Donald Trump for his efforts to disrupt the 2020 election results.
The federal law also enables private lawsuits from individuals who have suffered "business or property" damage in certain situations.
The discussion in the Supreme Court highlighted potential consequences if Horn's case is successful, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressing concerns about an increase in RICO lawsuits for minor injuries. On a different note, the RICO Act, established by President Nixon, not only provides prosecutors with enhanced powers against organized crime but also allows private lawsuits for individuals who have experienced business or property damage.
