Supreme Court Ruling Expands RICO for Lawyers

News Summary

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow damages under RICO for economic losses linked to personal injuries, significantly broadening the law’s application. This landmark decision enables individuals to seek compensation for business or property harm resulting from personal injuries. The ruling changes civil RICO claims dynamics and will likely lead to an increase in cases as plaintiffs now have an avenue for economic losses related to personal injuries.

Supreme Court Expands RICO: Economic Losses from Personal Injuries Now Eligible for Damages

In a landmark decision delivered on April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that damages are available under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) even when such damages stem from personal injuries. This ruling significantly alters the landscape for civil RICO claims, allowing individuals to pursue compensation for harm to their business or property—even if such harm is linked to personal injuries.

Background on RICO: A Tool Against Organized Crime

Originally enacted over 50 years ago, the RICO Act was designed to combat organized crime in the United States. It permits individuals harmed by violations of the act to file civil lawsuits seeking damages, which can include triple compensation. The recent case of Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn probes new depths into the interpretation of what constitutes harm under this powerful legislation.

Case Details: A Personal Injury Leads to Employment Loss

The case originated when Douglas Horn purchased a hemp-based product from Medical Marijuana, Inc., under the belief that it contained only cannabidiol (CBD) without any trace of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). However, after consuming the product, Horn tested positive for THC and was subsequently terminated from his job as a commercial truck driver. He sued the company under RICO, alleging mail and wire fraud that resulted in his employment loss.

Ruling Journey: From Lower Courts to the Supreme Court

Initially, the district court granted summary judgment to Medical Marijuana, ruling that Horn’s injury was of a personal nature, rather than qualifying as harm under RICO. However, the Second Circuit Court later overturned this decision, affirming that Horn’s employment loss constituted an injury to his business. The Supreme Court’s decision ultimately upheld the Second Circuit’s interpretation, clarifying that injuries to business or property arising from personal injuries can be claimed under RICO.

The Court’s Holding: Redefining What It Means to be Harmed

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion, clarified that the term “injured” simply means “harmed,” signifying that Horn’s lost income indeed qualifies as a business loss. This opinion expands the potential application of RICO, allowing plaintiffs to seek recovery for economic losses that stem from personal injuries linked to fraudulent conduct.

Dissenting Opinions: A Cautionary Stance on RICO’s Broader Scope

Not all justices agreed with the ruling. A dissenting opinion was presented by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who expressed concerns that RICO was never intended to encompass personal injury claims. They predicted that this decision could open the floodgates for numerous lawsuits that deviate from the law’s original intent.

Legal Implications: A New Frontier for Civil RICO Claims

This pivotal ruling may potentially lead to an influx of civil RICO cases as plaintiffs find it easier to argue that their business losses can be claimed under the act, even when they arise from personal injuries. Responding to the ruling, legal experts caution that prospective plaintiffs will still encounter significant barriers, requiring robust evidence of a pattern of racketeering and a clear connection between the injury and the RICO violations.

Next Steps: The Case Returns to Lower Courts

Bearing the implications of this ruling, the case will be sent back to lower courts for further proceedings. Observers are keenly watching how lower courts navigate this complex landscape in light of the Supreme Court’s clarification regarding the breadth of RICO claims.

The Future of RICO Litigation: Uncertain but Growing

While the Supreme Court’s decision represents a broadening of the scope of RICO claims, the true impact of this ruling on the future of civil RICO litigation remains to be seen. The implications resonate far beyond this case as attorneys and plaintiffs begin to explore the possibilities opened by this significant legal precedent.

As the legal community reflects on this important decision, questions abound regarding the potential transformation of tort claims into federal cases under RICO, illuminating a complex intersection of law and personal accountability.

For further inquiries and information regarding developments in this landmark case, legal representatives are available to provide insights and commentary.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic

HERE Resources

Tragedy in Arcadia: Lawyer Shot by Brother
Tragedy Strikes as Lawyer is Shot Dead in Phoenix
Charleston Prepares for Winter Storm and Snowfall
Traffic Woes in Charleston, SC Due to Multi-Vehicle Accidents

Additional Resources

• Reuters
• SCOTUSblog
• CNN
• New York Times
• Washington Post