The United States Supreme Court Scrutinizes RICO Act in THC Test Case
The United States Supreme Court is closely scrutinizing the legal parameters of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in a corporate-employee conflict surrounding a Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) test. The case was initiated by Douglas Horn, a trucker who sued his previous employer, Medical Marijuana Inc., under the RICO Act in 2015. Horn strenuously objectes to what he perceives as wrongful termination after using a cannabis product that was inaccurately marketed as having a “0% THC” composition.
Horn’s Case
Horn’s claim is that he turned to the product for management of pain, which subsequently led to his dismissal due to the unexpected results of a drug test. He accuses Medical Marijuana Inc. of executing wire and mail fraud, leading to his economic detriment. However, the case is not about cannabis regulation, but instead revolves around defining the boundaries of the RICO Act’s application, as it determines whether Horn’s lawsuit can proceed.
The Court’s Deliberation
During the hearing on Tuesday, multiple Supreme Court Justices speculated on the classification of Horn’s termination: whether it falls under personal or “business” injury according to the RICO Act. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson deliberated over the alleged harm inflicted upon Horn, pondering whether the ingestion of the product or his subsequent termination was the actual cause.
The Spotlight on RICO
The spotlight is now on the critical question of whether the RICO Act extends to cover financial harm resulting from personal injuries. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that even though Horn’s case might not solidly capture the essence of a RICO claim, it is still not related to the justification being used.
The Difficult Task
Easha Anand, the attorney representing Horn, put forward the argument that the economic damage her client experienced stems directly from the alleged RICO Act violation perpetuated by Medical Marijuana Inc. Nonetheless, she admitted that establishing such a claim would be an extraordinarily difficult task if the Supreme Court decides to proceed with the case.
The Appeal
Prior to this, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Horn, permitting the RICO Act lawsuit to advance. The court’s pronouncement highlighted that the dismissal of Horn, culminating in a loss of present and potential future wages and benefits, serves as an injury to “business” as denoted in the RICO Act. Reacting to this verdict, Medical Marijuana Inc. initiated an appeal, resulting in the Supreme Court’s decision to examine the case in April.
The Stance of Various Entities
Influential entities such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Hemp Roundtable have filed amicus briefs in this case. They caution about interpreting RICO damages in an expansive way and express apprehension about potentially sizeable liability for businesses in tort cases. Horn’s stance is backed by the American Association for Justice and the Human Trafficking Legal Center, who disagree with a confined interpretation of RICO that might inhibit economic injury claims resulting from personal injuries.
The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Verdict
As the deliberation proceeds within the Supreme Court, their verdict promises to wield a noteworthy impact on the reading of federal law, specifically as it regards the RICO Act, and the likely responsibility of businesses under its statutes.
