Latest News

US Supreme Court hears case of trucker fired for stopped working drug test from cannabis-based CBD

The U.S. Supreme Court tackled a case on Tuesday including a New york city state male who was fired from his task as a business truck driver for stopping working a. drug test after taking cannabidiol, or CBD, that he stated was. wrongly sold as doing not have the psychoactive active ingredient present in. marijuana.

The justices heard an appeal led by Medical Cannabis Inc. of a lower court's choice enabling complainant Douglas. Horn to bring a civil claim against the San Diego,. California-based business under the Racketeer Influenced and. Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This 1970 federal law was. created to punish organized crime and its economic. effect.

The civil provisions of the law authorization triple damages for. effective suits by anybody injured in his organization or. home as an outcome of certain actions by an offender.

Horn, who was ailing from injuries sustained in a trucking. mishap, in 2012 acquired a CBD tincture called Dixie X. It. was promoted as a natural painkiller consisting of no. tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychedelic component in. cannabis that triggers a high.

After a random drug test ordered by his employer identified. THC in his system, Horn was fired from his trucking job that he. had actually held for more than a decade. Horn has stated he is not a. marijuana user.

Some of the justices appeared responsive to the company's. argument that Horn's loss of work was not the type of. organization injury that Congress suggested to guard against when it. enacted the RICO Act.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed issue about. making it too simple for complainants to bring civil RICO suits. simply by identifying specific accidents as injuries. to business or residential or commercial property.

That would be a dramatic, really radical shift in how tort. suits are brought throughout the United States, Kavanaugh informed. Horn's attorney Easha Anand, referring to accident law,. referred to as torts.

And we would expect a clearer indication from Congress,. Kavanaugh included.

Lisa Blatt, the lawyer who represented Medical Cannabis,. argued that allowing Horn's match to proceed would open the door. to complainants making a federal case out of personal injury. problems better addressed under state law.

It is utterly implausible that Congress federalized every. slip and fall involving RICO predicates, Blatt stated, referring. to RICO crimes such as embezzlement, extortion or mail scams.

But questions posed by a few of the justices recommended they. may be inclined to let Horn's civil RICO match continue.

If you're damaged when you lose a task, then you have actually been. injured in your organization, have not you? liberal Justice Elena. Kagan asked Blatt.

I guess what I'm stating is the simplest, clearest reading. of this statutory language is it doesn't identify by what. triggers the damage, Kagan added. It just says, if you're damaged. in a way that remains in your organization or home, which has actually been. understood to consist of being hurt by loss of a job, and that's. by reason of a (racketeering activity), then you're entitled to. threefold the damages you would otherwise be.

Horn and his partner, Cindy, in 2015 brought a claim in. federal court in New York state looking for monetary damages,. declaring, among other things, that Medical Cannabis and. associated companies broke RICO's arrangements. Horn had the. cast independently tested in a laboratory, which verified. that the item consisted of THC.

According to the suit, a pattern of racketeering activity. by the business - including violations of the federal. Controlled Substances Act, as well as mail fraud and wire fraud. - caused an organization or home injury on Horn in the form of. his shooting.

A federal trial judge ruled versus Horn's civil RICO claim. The New York-based second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. the judge's decision, prompting Medical Cannabis's appeal to. the Supreme Court.

The justices are expected to rule in the case by the end of. June.

(source: Reuters)