XPost: misc.legal, talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: misc.transport.trucking   
   From: none@dualzone.com   
      
   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/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)