Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!tor-network!not-for-mail
From: Louie <none@dualzone.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,misc.transport.trucking
Subject: Supreme Court deciding if trucker can use racketeering law to sue CBD company after failed drug test
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 06:25:06 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: To protect and to server
Message-ID: <venm81$10ibs$1@paganini.bofh.team>
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 06:25:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="1067388"; posting-host="B4GDbPHflesHVYzHDSfJCA.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3
X-TOR-Router: sha256:MTg1LjIyMC4xMDAuMjUx --
Bytes: 4404
Lines: 75

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court weighed on Tuesday whether a truck driver 
can use an anti-racketeering law to recover lost wages after he said he 
unknowingly ingested a product containing THC, the active ingredient in 
marijuana.

Douglas Horn wants to sue the makers of Dixie X, a “CBD-rich medicine” 
advertised as being free of THC, because he lost his job after failing a 
drug test.

By using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Horn 
could get triple damages and attorneys fees from the company - if he wins.

But Medical Marijuana Inc., makers of Dixie X, argued RICO can’t be used 
to sue for personal injuries, only for harm to “business or property.”

More:What is CBD oil good for and are there downsides to using it?

“It is a physical, chemical, bodily invasion,” attorney Lisa Blatt, who 
represented the company, said of Horn’s allegation. “To me, that’s a 
physical injury.”

Horn contends that the harm was to his ability to earn a living.

“We think being fired is a classic injury to business,” Easha Anand, an 
attorney for Horn, told the Supreme Court. "You can no longer carry out 
your livelihood."

More:Supreme Court rejects case about DOJ investigating parents who 
protest at school boards

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Horn. The 
court said the plain meaning of the word “business” allows Horn to sue.

But during more than an hour of oral arguments Tuesday, some conservative 
justices expressed concern that allowing that interpretation would open 
the floodgates to types of lawsuits the law wasn’t intended to cover.

That was also a point raised in a legal filing by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, which urged the court to side against Horn. Otherwise, the group 
said, there will be “devastating consequences” from increasing businesses’ 
exposure to lawsuits.

Created primarily to fight organized crime, RICO was seldom used until a 
1981 Supreme Court decision expanded its interpretation to apply to both 
legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, according to Jeffrey Grell, an 
expert on the law who previewed the case for the American Bar Association.

But after the federal courts were deluged with RICO cases, the Supreme 
Court has tried to limit its application.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday said the law’s exclusion of personal 
injuries was designed to narrow its scope.

And Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether Horn was just recharacterizing a 
personal injury as an injury to his business to get around that 
limitation.

That, he said, would be a radical shift in how people can sue for damages.

Anand responded that there are still significant hurdles for using RICO.

Those injured have to show a pattern of racketeering activity and that the 
illegal activities caused the injury, she said.

More:The movement to legalize psychedelics comes with high hopes, and even 
higher costs

And challengers cannot sue for pain and suffering which, Anand said, 
typically makes up most of the damages sought.

“Defendants have come to this court for decades and said, `The sky is 
going to fall if you interpret RICO the way its text literally says it 
should be interpreted,’” she said. “The sky hasn’t fallen.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/10/15/supreme-court-
medical-marijuana-cbd-supplement/75687285007/