Latest news with #DixieX
USA Today
02-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides with truck driver who said CBD got him fired
Supreme Court sides with truck driver who said CBD got him fired Douglas Horn, the truck driver, had taken the supplement to help his chronic back and shoulder pain. The company promised the hemp-based product, Dixie X, did not contain THC. Show Caption Hide Caption What we know about key SCOTUS cases that could impact you The Supreme Court is beginning a new term and is set to hear a range of big cases. Here's what we know now. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a truck driver who lost his job after taking a hemp-based supplement. In a 5-4 decision, the court said Douglas Horn can use an anti-racketeering law to sue the supplement manufacturer he said falsely advertised its 'new CBD-rich medicine' as not containing TCH, the active ingredient in marijuana. Horn said the supplement, Dixie X, caused him to fail a drug test and he should be able to use a federal law created to fight organized crime to recover lost wages. Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Horn could get triple damages and attorney fees if he can prove his case. The manufacturer, Medical Marijuana Inc., argued that RICO can't be used to sue for personal injuries, only for harm to 'business or property.' Horn contended that the harm was to his ability to earn a living, which meets the plain definition of 'business.' Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Medical Marijuana "tried valiantly to engineer a rule that yields its preferred outcomes." "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," she wrote. "That is a battle it cannot win." Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. During the October oral arguments, some conservative justices expressed concern that allowing that interpretation would open the floodgates to the 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 rule against Horn. Otherwise, the group said, there will be 'devastating consequences' from increasing businesses' exposure to lawsuits. The truck driver's lawyers argued there are still significant hurdles for using RICO. Anyone making a claim has to show a pattern of racketeering activity and that the illegal activities caused the injury, Easha Anand, an attorney for Horn, told the Supreme Court. 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. The case is Medical Marijuana Inc. v. Horn.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with trucker fired after CBD product triggered failed drug test
The Supreme Court sided with a former commercial truck driver Wednesday who was fired after failing a drug test he said was caused by a 'CBD-rich medicine' in a decision that could make it easier to sue companies under organized crime laws. Douglas Horn sued the manufacturers of a CBD product called 'Dixie X' that the companies proclaimed included no THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Horn took the product to manage debilitating pain after a serious accident, but he later failed a drug test and was fired. The Supreme Court's decision will allow Horn's case to move forward in lower courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority that included both liberal and conservative justices. '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,' Barrett wrote. 'That is a battle it cannot win.' Horn sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act, a 1970 law targeted at organized crime that also authorizes civil lawsuits – and allows plaintiffs to collect triple damages – for harm to their business or property. The question for the Supreme Court was whether Horn's loss of employment qualified as a business harm. Medical Marijuana, Inc., and other companies involved in distributing Dixie X, argued that Horn's injury was a personal one – and therefore not a business or property harm as required in the law. Congress, the companies argued, didn't intend for Americans to be able to collect triple damages under the RICO law for run-of-the-mill injury claims. Horn sued in the Western District of New York in 2015, alleging in part that Medical Marijuana Inc. engaged in mail and wire fraud. The district court ruled against Horn, but the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed his suit to move forward. The companies appealed to the Supreme Court. Allowing Horn to sue, the companies said, would vastly expand the number and type of 'civil RICO' lawsuits permeating through federal courts. Concern over a flood of new lawsuits appeared to resonate with several of the court's conservatives during the oral arguments in October. But other justices suggested during arguments that a loss of employment would fall under what most Americans view as an ordinary definition of 'business.' 'If you're harmed when you lose a job, then you've been injured in your business, haven't you?' Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal wing, asked the lawyer for the companies. The law, Kagan said, 'just says if you've been injured by a RICO violation in your business, which includes your employment, then you're entitled to threefold damages.' President Richard Nixon signed the federal RICO Act in 1970 to give prosecutors more power to go after the heads of organized crime families. Several states have enacted their own versions of the law. In Georgia, prosecutors were attempting to use a state RICO law to prosecute Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results there. This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN
02-04-2025
- Business
- CNN
Supreme Court sides with trucker fired after CBD product triggered failed drug test
The Supreme Court sided with a former commercial truck driver Wednesday who was fired after failing a drug test he said was caused by a 'CBD-rich medicine' in a decision that could make it easier to sue companies under organized crime laws. Douglas Horn sued the manufacturers of a CBD product called 'Dixie X' that the companies proclaimed included no THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Horn took the product to manage debilitating pain after a serious accident, but he later failed a drug test and was fired. The Supreme Court's decision will allow Horn's case to move forward in lower courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority that included both liberal and conservative justices. '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,' Barrett wrote. 'That is a battle it cannot win.' Horn sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act, a 1970 law targeted at organized crime that also authorizes civil lawsuits – and allows plaintiffs to collect triple damages – for harm to their business or property. The question for the Supreme Court was whether Horn's loss of employment qualified as a business harm. Medical Marijuana, Inc., and other companies involved in distributing Dixie X, argued that Horn's injury was a personal one – and therefore not a business or property harm as required in the law. Congress, the companies argued, didn't intend for Americans to be able to collect triple damages under the RICO law for run-of-the-mill injury claims. Horn sued in the Western District of New York in 2015, alleging in part that Medical Marijuana Inc. engaged in mail and wire fraud. The district court ruled against Horn, but the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed his suit to move forward. The companies appealed to the Supreme Court. Allowing Horn to sue, the companies said, would vastly expand the number and type of 'civil RICO' lawsuits permeating through federal courts. Concern over a flood of new lawsuits appeared to resonate with several of the court's conservatives during the oral arguments in October. But other justices suggested during arguments that a loss of employment would fall under what most Americans view as an ordinary definition of 'business.' 'If you're harmed when you lose a job, then you've been injured in your business, haven't you?' Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal wing, asked the lawyer for the companies. The law, Kagan said, 'just says if you've been injured by a RICO violation in your business, which includes your employment, then you're entitled to threefold damages.' President Richard Nixon signed the federal RICO Act in 1970 to give prosecutors more power to go after the heads of organized crime families. Several states have enacted their own versions of the law. In Georgia, prosecutors were attempting to use a state RICO law to prosecute Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results there. This story has been updated with additional details.
