Supreme Court gives CBD-using truck driver path for racketeering claims after firing

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of a truck driver’s federal racketeering case against the company that sold him supposedly THC-free medicinal drops that cost him his job after a failed drug test.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices found that a loss of employment does equate to a loss of business for the purposes of a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claim.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in the court’s opinion that, while the statute implicitly denies any remedy for personal injuries, it does not deny remedies for business and property losses that derive from a personal injury.

“For example, if the owner of a gas station is beaten in a robbery, he cannot recover for his pain and suffering,” Barrett wrote. “But if his injuries force him to shut his doors, he can recover for the loss of his business. In short, a plaintiff can seek damages for business or property loss regardless of whether the loss resulted from a personal injury.”

Trucker Douglas Horn purchased Red Dice’s hemp-based wellness product Dixie X CBD Dew Drops in 2012 to treat chronic shoulder and back pain from an accident. Horn thought Dixie X would comply with his employer’s drug use policy because it was marketed as containing 0% THC — the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

A few months after using Dixie X, Horn was fired for failing a random drug test. Horn sent the drops to an independent lab for testing. The results came back positive for THC, confirming Horn’s suspicions.

Horn filed a complaint against Red Dice’s parent company Medical Marijuana for various state crimes and federal racketeering claims amounting to $10 million in damages for his lost wages. Horn argued that his job loss qualified as a civil RICO claim because he suffered a business injury when Dixie X’s THC-free marketing led to his loss of employment.

Medical Marijuana asked for the justices’ intervention after the Second Circuit sided with Horn. During oral arguments in October, the company argued that Horn suffered a personal injury not covered under civil RICO.

Several justices hesitated to endorse Horn’s argument, expressing concerns about the affect on personal injury suits.

In its briefs, the company raised several gangster-related hypotheticals, asserting that if a mobster assaulted a carwash owner and the owner does business “with the mob” as a result, he suffered a “business or property injury.”

According to the company, because the owner was forced to work with the mob rather than find a cheaper, legitimate competitor, that is a prototypical business or property injury.

“What makes choosing a more expensive business partner a ‘prototypical’ business injury?” Barrett wrote. “And why does this rationale not extend to losing your job, as Horn did after consuming Dixie X? Medical Marijuana does not say.”

Medical Marijuana further argued that “injured in his business or property” under civil RICO could only be interpreted as an “invasion of a legal right,” meaning a business or property injury, and thus Horn should not have been able to “recast” his harm under RICO.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, echoed that argument in his dissent, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Barrett found the argument unconvincing, noting that “even in the language of lawyers,” that specialized definition is not exclusive. Further, Medical Marijuana appeared the be editing the law to fit its arguments, arguing that “damages" should be interchangeable with “damage,” and limits RICO’s applicability.

“Besides, Medical Marijuana’s preferred definition of ‘damages’ is untenable,” Barrette wrote. “Under it, the statute would allow a plaintiff to recover ‘threefold the loss, hurt or harm he sustains.’ That makes little sense.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separate dissent, noting that he would have declined to review the case in the first place, and warned that the majority’s decision created a split between the Second Circuit and the Sixth, Seventh and 11th Circuits.

The high court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social