### Supreme Court Divided Over CBD-Related RICO Lawsuit

The Supreme Court showcased a deep division on Tuesday over the case involving Douglas Horn, a former commercial truck driver dismissed following a failed drug test that he claims was triggered by a "CBD-rich medicine." The court’s forthcoming decision, likely to be delivered next year, holds the potential to influence Americans' ability to claim substantial damages under an anti-mob law if they lose their jobs due to injuries caused by products.

Central to the court's deliberations was whether Horn could proceed with his lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a law that permits civil lawsuits and allows for triple damages for business or property harms. Some conservative justices seemed to support Horn's stance, while others were cautious about setting a precedent that could pave the way for extensive litigation over relatively minor injury claims.

Medical Marijuana Inc., and its related distributors, argued that Horn's injury was a personal one rather than a business or property harm, which the RICO Act requires. Justice Elena Kagan, representing the court's liberal wing, pushed back sharply. "If you're harmed when you lose a job, then you've been injured in your business, haven't you?" Kagan inquired, emphasizing that the law covers employment-related injuries under business harms, thereby entitling affected individuals to triple damages.

Conversely, conservative justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed apprehensions about a potential surge in RICO lawsuits. Kavanaugh termed Horn's argument as a "dramatic, really radical shift" in the landscape of tort claims across the United States.

Horn's troubles began after he turned to "Dixie X," a CBD product advertised as THC-free, to alleviate intense pain from a prior accident. Weeks after using the product in 2012, Horn failed a drug test and subsequently pursued legal action against Medical Marijuana Inc. and others, accusing them of violating the Controlled Substances Act and committing mail and wire fraud. Although a federal district court initially ruled against him, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the suit to proceed.

The companies contested this decision, bringing the case to the Supreme Court. They argue that the RICO Act was not designed to handle standard product liability claims and warn that extending its application in this manner would significantly broaden the scope of "civil RICO" lawsuits.

Initially established in 1970 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon, the RICO Act was aimed at equipping prosecutors with tools to dismantle organized crime. Individual states have since adopted similar statutes, with some states like Georgia currently applying their versions of RICO laws to high-profile cases such as prosecuting former President Donald Trump.

The federal law also enables private parties to file lawsuits, provided they were "damaged" in "business or property" under specific conditions. This case’s ruling could redefine the boundaries of what constitutes a business or property harm under RICO, potentially reshaping the legal landscape for future claims.