Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &#038; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

On April 2, 2025, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision expanding the type of civil actions that can be brought under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that a plaintiff may recover on claims stemming from personal injury under civil RICO §1964(c) if they can be shown to have caused the plaintiff economic harm.

core/paragraph

Section 1964(c) provides that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of [RICO] may sue.” Prior to the Court’s April 2 ruling, circuits were split over whether §1964(c) excludes recovery for harm to business or property caused by personal injury. The Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits each ruled that RICO excludes economic harm that arises from personal injuries. The Second and Ninth Circuits allowed civil RICO claims for economic harms in personal injury cases.

This circuit split was resolved in <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/2264334/attachments/0" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Medical Marijuana, Inc., et al. v. Horn</em>, No. 23-365, 2025 WL 978102 (U.S. April 2, 2025).</a> The plaintiff, Douglass J. Horn, is a truck driver who filed suit after failing a drug test because he had THC in his system.&nbsp; Horn started using “Dixie X,” a tincture infused with cannabidiol (“CBD”), following a car accident. Dixie X advertised that it contained 0% tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”). Unlike CBD, THC has mind-altering properties associated with marijuana and is generally illegal in concentrations greater than 0.3%. When Horn’s employer flagged him for a random drug test Horn tested positive for THC and subsequently lost his job. Horn had the Dixie X tested and found it contained illegal levels of THC.

Horn sued Medical Marijuana, the company that makes Dixie X, and others alleging they were operating a RICO enterprise. The District Court held that Horn’s loss of employment stemmed from a personal injury – ingesting Dixie X – so he could not recover under §1964(c). Horn appealed, and the Second Circuit reversed. The Second Circuit held that an antecedent personal injury does not bar recovery for all business and property injuries that derive from that personal injury. Medical Marijuana appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that one who is “injured in his business or property” is not precluded from recovering the economic harms flowing from personal injuries, thus ruling in favor for Horn and resolving the circuit split.

The Supreme Court opening the door to recovery for personal injuries under civil RICO has significant implications. This decision widens the application of the civil RICO statue and increases the pool of future plaintiffs. Corporate clients may see an increase in tortious interference, defamation, and other personal injury claims brought under the RICO statute in the future.

Close-up of a wooden judge’s gavel resting on a sounding block in a courtroom setting.

Supreme Court Holds Personal Injury Gives Rise to Civil RICO Suit

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

The Contract Review Nobody Asks For — And Why I Do It Anyway

Before the Problem: What It Actually Costs to Call Your Attorney First

2 Months into the New “No-Deny” Era of SEC Enforcement Settlements