The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Douglas Horn, a trucker who sued Medical Marijuana Inc. after being fired for a positive THC test that he says resulted from a hemp-derived CBD product. The ruling allows him to seek triple damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, setting a major precedent for hemp and CBD businesses. The case, which has been ongoing since 2015, centered not on cannabis law but on whether lost wages and employment benefits fall under RICO’s scope. While RICO is often associated with prosecuting criminal organizations, the court determined that economic harm from misleading advertising could qualify.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the 5-4 majority, stated, “Medical Marijuana is left fighting the most natural interpretation of the text—that ‘injured’ means ‘harmed’—with no plausible alternative in hand.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her, while Justices Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing the decision creates “substantial confusion” over what constitutes economic damages under RICO.
Medical Marijuana Inc. had appealed the case, contending that RICO was not designed to cover personal injuries or their indirect financial impacts. Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, warned that broadening RICO’s application could expose hemp and CBD companies to increased liability. Despite these concerns, advocates argue the ruling reinforces accountability for misleading product claims. With the case now remanded to lower courts, Horn’s legal team must prove his financial losses were directly caused by Medical Marijuana Inc.’s actions. As the hemp and CBD industries navigate evolving regulations, this decision highlights the increasing legal complexities surrounding product transparency and consumer protections.
Stay informed with daily updates on cannabis business news by subscribing to our newsletter.
