The racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations (RICO) statute has seen a surge in prominence in recent years, valued by plaintiffs for its ability to allow for access to the federal court system, address patterns of illicit conduct, and award treble damages and attorney fees. Originally intended by Congress to dismantle organized crime, civil RICO's appeal has broadened as the federal courts witnessed an increase in the use of civil RICO against business enterprises. In response to its increased use, courts have attempted to limit the reach of civil RICO. However, some recent cases, such as Yegiazaryan v. Smagin and Medical Marijuana v. Horn, show that the courts are grappling with the statute's injury requirement and might expand the sense of hope for plaintiffs.

The Core Issue in 'Medical Marijuana v. Horn'

In Medical Marijuana v. Horn, the U.S. Supreme Court faces the question of whether economic losses tied to personal injuries, such as lost wages, can constitute an injury to "business or property" actionable under RICO. The case revolves around a former truck driver who consumed a CBD product marketed by the CBD companies as free of THC but lost his job after a failed drug test. In 2015, a federal district court dismissed the driver's RICO claim, holding that he lacked RICO standing because his loss of earnings was derivative of an antecedent personal injury. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the ruling and reinstated the RICO claim, and the petitioners CBD companies appealed to the Supreme Court.