Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 15, 2024
Full case name	Medical Marijuana, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Douglas J. Horn
Docket no.	23-365
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	Partial judgment for defendants entered. Horn v. Medical Marijuana, Inc., No. 15-cv-701 (W.D.N.Y 2022). Partial judgment reversed. 80 F.4th 130 (2d Cir. 2023). Cert.grantedsub nom Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 601 U.S. ___ (2024).
Questions presented
Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant's acts for purposes of civil RICO.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, Docket No. 23-365, is a pending United States Supreme Court case. In the case, the Court will decide whether a commercial truck driver can sue a CBD company under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act for misrepresenting its product as THC-free, leading to his job loss after a failed drug test. ^[1]

Background

Factual background

In 2012, Douglas Horn—a commercial truck driver—was in an automobile accident that caused injuries to his hip and right shoulder. Though he was prescribed medication for his injuries, Horn soon sought out natural alternatives. Later that year, Horn read a magazine advertisement for Dixie X CBD Dew Drops Tincture ("Dixie X"), a product sold by Medical Marijuana, Inc. The advertisement explicitly stated that Dixie X contained no tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of marijuana.

It was important to Horn that Dixie X was free of THC. As commercial truck drivers, Horn and his wife Cindy were random drug testing by their employer. After researching the product some more to corroborate the claim of no THC, Horn purchased Dixie X in late 2012.

After consuming the product, Horn failed both a preliminary and a confirmatory random drug test. As a result, he lost his job, current and future wages, insurance, and pension benefits. Horn's wife later resigned from her job, believing it was unsafe to continue as a truck driver without her husband. Suspecting Dixie X was to blame for his failed drug test, Horn purchased more of the product and had it tested by an independent laboratory. Those tests confirmed that Dixie X contained THC. ^[2]

Lower court proceedings

The Horns filed a nine-count lawsuit against Medical Marijuana in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Count Two asserted a claim of RICO conspiracy. That count was predicated upon claims of—among other things—mail and wire fraud. The remaining counts were New York State law claims. The trial court eventually dismissed all but Douglas Horn's RICO claim and one New York state law claim. The court then concluded that Horn's lost earnings flowed from a personal injury—namely, the nonconsensual ingestion of THC—and not from an injury to his business or property, and were thus not recoverable under civil RICO. The court granted judgment to Medical Marijuana on Horn's RICO claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that civil RICO permits recovery for injuries stemming from personal injury. ^[2]

Supreme Court

The Courts of Appeals were split regarding whether civil RICO allows plaintiffs to recover damages arising from personal injuries. The Sixth, ^[3] Seventh, ^[4] and Eleventh ^[5] Circuits did not permit such suits, while the Second ^[2] and Ninth ^[6] Circuits did. On October 3, 2023, Medical Marijuana petitioned the Supreme Court for review. On April 29, 2024, the Court granted certiorari. Oral arguments were heard on October 15. Lisa Blatt argued the cause for petitioners, and Easha Anand argued the cause for respondents.

References

1. "Supreme Court Leans Toward Truck Driver Fired Over Drug Test". The New York Times. 2024-10-15. Retrieved 2025-02-28.
2. Horn v. Med. Marijuana, 80 F.4th 130 (2d Cir. 2023).
3. Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, 731 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
4. Evans v. City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds byHill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965, 967 n.1 (7th Cir. 2013).
5. Grogan v. Platt, 835 F.2d 844 (11th Cir. 1988)).
6. Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).