Analyzing the Argument by Ronald Mann
October 16, 2024 at 4:37 p.m.
The court heard arguments in Medical Marijuana v. Horn on October 15th. (Heidi Bethen, via Shutterstock)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in the case of a truck driver who was fired after a wellness product marketed as being free of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, failed a routine drug test. Douglas Horn sued the manufacturer of a CBD product he took for chronic pain under federal racketeering law for economic damages.
But the company that made the product told a judge Tuesday that Horn's injuries were personal, not business or property damage, and therefore did not fall under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Ta. Of relevance here, RICO, a federal law originally passed to target organized crime, created a private cause of action and provided triple damages to anyone who “suffered injury to business or property” as a result of racketeering activity. This allows for compensation to be sought.
Horne purchased the hemp-based medical marijuana Dixie X after reading that it contained CBD but no THC. While CBD is completely legal, THC remains illegal in some circumstances. Horn failed a THC blood test and was fired from his job, losing his insurance and pension.
Mr. Horne filed a lawsuit alleging that the makers of Dixie X engaged in mail and wire fraud, resulting in damage to Mr. Horne's “business or property.”
Lisa Blatt, representing the manufacturer, told the judge on Tuesday that Horne's unwanted THC ingestion was bodily injury, a purely “personal” injury, and no damage to “business or property.” He said there was no damage. Horn's financial loss was “the harm he suffered” as a result of his injuries, she argued.
Horn's attorney, Esha Anand, argued that the loss of employment was clearly an injury to the “business” and should be litigated within the RICO command center. A lower court agreed with Horn and allowed the lawsuit to proceed before the companies took the case to the Supreme Court.
The civil RICO law, which the companies argued before the Supreme Court, clearly requires that the plaintiff “suffer business or property damage,” unlike the criminal law. They said this language reflected a clear intent to exclude the only serious injury recognized by the law: personal injury (the kind that hires a “personal injury” lawyer).
Mr. Horn's premise that civil RICO is available when a “personal” injury results in “business or property” damage means that any tort plaintiff who can provide receipts for lost wages or other economic damages can claim RICO. The companies argued that making it available would have far-reaching implications. loss. Blatt told the justices that the Clayton Act, a key antitrust law, limits private lawsuits to plaintiffs who sustained injury to “business or property,” and the Supreme Court ruled against this. Personal injury claims have always been dismissed. The same results should apply here, she argued.
However, for Horne, “injury” is the same as “damage,” and the harm he sustained to his business (loss of employment) is typical of the type of business damage to which civil RICO law applies. Mr. Anand also emphasized that in RICO, Congress made clear that the law “shall be interpreted liberally to accomplish its remedial purposes.” This rule of interpretation suggests that if there is any doubt, the court should allow Mr. Horne's case to proceed, she said.
Some of the justices peppered Blatt with tough questions about how to reconcile his claims with RICO's text, but Tuesday's tone will deflate in the time allotted to Anand. There were many. Chief Justice John Roberts began asserting the view early in Anand's presentation that “the 'business or property' limitation was intended to be a significant limitation on the scope of RICO,” and that this meant that the “RICO 'and her position seemed likely to break through that restriction.'
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was even more pointed, criticizing the idea that Mr. Horne could “evade that limitation by treating lost wages and lost medical expenses as separate damages to business and property.”
And Mr. Kavanaugh warned that Mr. Horn's position would result in “a dramatic, truly fundamental change in the way tort cases are filed across the country.”
As alluded to above, some justices, particularly Justice Elena Kagan, objected to Blatt's textual reading. For example, Ms. Kagan urged Ms. Blatt to help her “understand the most common and natural reading of the statutory language.” But when Mr. Roberts and Mr. Kavanaugh appear to be firmly settled on liability, I doubt that is the majority view. There may be dissent when this case is decided, but I don't think it will be a close race, and I really doubt that a majority will be able to hold anyone accountable here.
