[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
National News See other National News Articles Title: Supreme Court Rules on Truck DriverÂ’s RICO Suit Supreme Court Rules on Truck Driver’s RICO Suit By: James Edwards April 9, 2025 Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in favor of truck driver Douglas Horn, allowing him to sue a CBD supplement manufacturer under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Horn alleged that Medical Marijuana Inc. falsely marketed its Dixie X product as THC-free, leading to his failed drug test and subsequent job loss. Horn claimed the financial harm to his livelihood qualifies as a business-related injury under RICO. Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the Supreme Court Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that damage to a person’s earning ability falls under the statute’s protections. Barrett wrote, “The ‘business or property’ requirement operates with respect to the kinds of harm for which the plaintiff can recover, not the cause of the harm for which he seeks relief.” Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo The Court’s decision hinges on the interpretation of RICO’s phrasing, which permits lawsuits for harm to “business or property.” Horn alleged that harmful misrepresentation and fraudulent claims by the manufacturer constituted a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan Horn began using Dixie X after sustaining workplace back and shoulder injuries. The product, though labeled THC-free, caused him to fail a random drug test. Following his termination for refusing a substance abuse program, Horn filed the lawsuit under RICO. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh greet President Donald Trump Justices Neil Gorsuch and Barrett joined the Court’s three liberal justices to form the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented. Kavanaugh argued that RICO excludes personal-injury lawsuits. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh Kavanaugh wrote, “A plaintiff cannot circumvent RICO’s categorical exclusion of personal-injury suits simply by alleging that a personal injury resulted in losses of business or property, thereby converting otherwise excluded personal-injury suits into business- or property- injury suits.” Chief Justice John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Anthony Kennedy Kavanaugh added, “The aftermath of the Court’s opinion could be quite a mess, as courts grapple with RICO personal-injury cases where the question is what losses qualify as business or property losses.” Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Anthony Kennedy The Chamber of Commerce supported the manufacturer, warning the ruling could lead to a surge in lawsuits. However, Horn’s attorneys have countered that strict evidence requirements for RICO claims limit potential misuse. Amy Coney Barrett at ceremony for retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor RICO expert Jeffrey Grell claimed the law originally targeted organized crime but has broadened since a 1981 Supreme Court decision. Grell also noted the Court’s efforts to limit the statute’s application in recent decades. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett Barrett wrote, “When all is said and done, Medical Marijuana is left fighting the most natural interpretation of the text − that ‘injured’ means ‘harmed’ − with no plausible alternative in hand. That is a battle it cannot win.” Poster Comment: It's about time these fly by night supplement companies are held to account for their bad products. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Well, we are first assuming that he failed the drug test because the test was actually looking for THC and not something else associated with THC. The question is: Was the product THC free as advertised, or was that advertisement false. Assuming it was in the product, the next question is "how much"? Trace amounts of a material may not invalidate a claim it was "free" of that material. I expect regulations would decide that. Finally, if the product failed both of those tests, is the harm done caused by the product itself, or by drug testing protocols that may be unreasonable. Is the manufacturer responsible for testing standards that are unreasonable? I.e. It's not like the product gave the guy blood clots or brain tumors.
They measure for controlled substances in nanograms, ng for short. How much trace the product left is not known. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||