
Supreme Court rules in favor of truck driver fired after positive THC test
By Kalé Carey (Reporter), Joey Nunez (Video Editor)
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of truck driver Douglas Horn, allowing him to sue Medical Marijuana Inc. for not disclosing THC in its product. Horn tested positive for THC after using their advertised THC-free CBD medicine, leading to his termination.
- The court’s 5-4 decision could allow individuals to bring RICO charges against companies, which authorities typically use in organized crime cases.
- The justices emphasized that the RICO law has evolved beyond its original scope, and Congress must address its future application in cases.
Full Story
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a truck driver who was fired after testing positive for THC and failing a drug test.
Media Landscape
See how news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story. Learn moreBias Summary
- The Supreme Court ruled that a truck driver can seek triple damages in his lawsuit regarding a CBD product he claims was falsely advertised as THC-free, leading to his firing.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that a plaintiff can seek damages for business loss, regardless of personal injury claims.
- Douglas Horn sued Medical Marijuana Inc. Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, asserting he suffered financial ruin due to wrongful firing.
- In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that RICO's exclusion of personal injury claims should have ended Horn's lawsuit.
- No summary available because of a lack of coverage.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Douglas Horn can sue for triple damages under RICO after being fired for failing a drug test linked to a CBD product with THC, which was falsely advertised as THC-free.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion stated that a plaintiff can seek damages for business loss, even if it arises from personal injury, marking a significant legal position regarding the RICO statute.
- Horn claims he suffered financial ruin due to his firing, stemming from the use of the product Dixie X, which contained THC.
- The court's decision could facilitate more claims against companies under federal racketeering laws, which were originally designed for organized crime.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
The ruling on Wednesday, April 2, allows the driver, Douglas Horn, to sue the manufacturer of the product for not disclosing it contained THC, the psychoactive chemical found in cannabis.
How can individuals use the RICO law to argue personal injury?
Horn can now bring federal racketeering charges against Medical Marijuana Incorporated under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
The justices ruled 5-4, potentially opening the door for individuals to sue companies under the RICO Act. Prosecutors typically use the act in cases of organized crime, such as drug trafficking, murder and extortion. This decision could allow a customer to sue a business for harm caused by its products.
The court ruled a plaintiff could seek treble damages for business or property loss, even if the loss stemmed from a personal injury. Treble damages are legal remedies that require the court to pay the plaintiff three times the amount of actual damages determined by the jury.
Medical Marijuana Inc. argued that the word “injury” in the RICO law refers to harm caused to a business, not an individual. They believe Horn is arguing a personal injury rather than harm to his business.
Why was Horn fired?
In 2012, after an injury, Horn found a product that helped alleviate his chronic pain. Medical Marijuana Inc. advertised “Dixie X,” claiming it was a THC-free CBD medicine.
Court documents show that Horn’s company randomly selected him for a drug test, which detected THC in his system. The company later terminated him for refusing to enter a substance abuse program, as doing so would require him to admit he was a drug user.
Horn suspected the medicine was the cause of the positive result. He purchased another bottle and sent it to a testing lab, and the results showed THC was present in the product despite claims it was THC-free.
Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!
Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
In their ruling, the justices noted Horn’s argument that Medical Marijuana’s false advertising amounted to mail and wire fraud, constituting a “pattern of racketeering activity.”
A district court initially sided with the company, stating RICO could only be applied when a person was harmed in business or property. However, an appeals court reversed the decision, asserting that Horn was harmed in his business when he lost his job.
In the majority opinion, the justices stated the RICO law has evolved to include cases broader than initially intended but emphasized that Congress must ultimately address the law moving forward.
[Kalé Carey]
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF A TRUCK DRIVER FIRED AFTER TESTING POSITIVE FOR THC AND FAILING A DRUG TEST.
WEDNESDAY’S RULING ALLOWS THE DRIVER TO SUE THE MANUFACTURER FOR NOT DISCLOSING THAT THEIR PRODUCT CONTAINED THE COMPOUND FOUND IN CANNABIS.
DOUGLAS HORN CAN BRING FEDERAL RACKETEERING CHARGES AGAINST THE COMPANY MEDICAL MARIJUANA INCORPORATED.
THE JUSTICES HANDED DOWN A 5-4 DECISION POTENTIALLY OPENING THE DOOR FOR INDIVIDUALS TO SUE A COMPANY UNDER THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS RICO.
TYPICALLY USED IN ORGANIZED CRIME CASES LIKE DRUG TRAFFICKING, MURDER, OR EXTORTION, THIS CASE COULD NOW ALLOW A CUSTOMER TO SUE A BUSINESS OR PROPERTY.
THE COURT WROTE, “a plaintiff may seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss resulted from a personal injury.”
THE COMPANY CENTERED THEIR ARGUMENT ON THE WORD “INJURY,” SAYING IT REFERS TO HARM. THEY BELIEVE HORN IS ARGUING A PERSONAL INJURY, RATHER THAN HARM TO A BUSINESS.
AFTER AN INJURY, HORN FOUND A PRODUCT IN 2012 TO HELP WITH HIS CHRONIC PAIN. MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVERTISED ‘DIXIE X,’ CLAIMING IT WAS A THC-FREE CBD MEDICINE.
COURT DOCUMENTS SHOW HORN WAS CHOSEN FOR A RANDOM DRUG TEST BY HIS COMPANY AFTER THC WAS DETECTED IN HIS SYSTEM. HE WAS LATER TERMINATED FOR REFUSING TO ENTER A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM, AS IT WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO ADMIT TO BEING A DRUG USER.
HORN SUSPECTED THE MEDICINE CAUSED THE POSITIVE RESULT, SO HE BOUGHT ANOTHER BOTTLE AND SENT IT TO A TESTING LAB. THE RESULTS SHOWED THC WAS PRESENT IN THE MEDICINE, DESPITE CLAIMING TO HAVE ZERO PERCENT.
IN THEIR DECISION THE COURT WROTE THE BASIS OF HORN’S ARGUMENT, EXPLAINING, “He also asserted that Medical Marijuana’s false or misleading advertising satisfied the elements of mail and wire fraud and that those crimes constituted a “‘pattern of racketeering activity.”
A DISTRICT COURT ORIGINALLY SIDED WITH MEDICAL MARIJUANA, STATING RICO CAN ONLY BE USED WHEN A PERSON IS INJURED BY A BUSINESS OR PROPERTY. HOWEVER, AN APPEALS COURT REVERSED THE DECISION, ARGUING HORN WAS INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS WHEN HE LOST HIS JOB.
IN THE MAJORITY OPINION, THE JUSTICES STATED THAT THE RICO LAW HAS EVOLVED TO INCLUDE CASES BROADER THAN ORIGINALLY INTENDED, BUT BELIEVE CONGRESS MUST ULTIMATELY ADDRESS THE LAW MOVING FORWARD.FOR STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS, I’M KALÉ CAREY
FIND MORE FACT BASED NEWS RIGHT NOW ON THE STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS MOBILE APP.
Media Landscape
See how news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story. Learn moreBias Summary
- The Supreme Court ruled that a truck driver can seek triple damages in his lawsuit regarding a CBD product he claims was falsely advertised as THC-free, leading to his firing.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that a plaintiff can seek damages for business loss, regardless of personal injury claims.
- Douglas Horn sued Medical Marijuana Inc. Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, asserting he suffered financial ruin due to wrongful firing.
- In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that RICO's exclusion of personal injury claims should have ended Horn's lawsuit.
- No summary available because of a lack of coverage.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Douglas Horn can sue for triple damages under RICO after being fired for failing a drug test linked to a CBD product with THC, which was falsely advertised as THC-free.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion stated that a plaintiff can seek damages for business loss, even if it arises from personal injury, marking a significant legal position regarding the RICO statute.
- Horn claims he suffered financial ruin due to his firing, stemming from the use of the product Dixie X, which contained THC.
- The court's decision could facilitate more claims against companies under federal racketeering laws, which were originally designed for organized crime.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
Straight to your inbox.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
MOST POPULAR
-
Will the Army’s new gender-neutral fitness test hurt women in combat roles?
Watch 2:4910 hrs ago -
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Hegseth welcomes 8,700 ‘warriors of conscience’ who refused COVID vaccine
Watch 2:0712 hrs ago -
AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana
NIH to collect Americans’ health data for autism registry: Report
Watch 1:5312 hrs ago -
People's Liberation Army
China now flying jets with Egypt near Israel’s southern border
Watch 2:1712 hrs ago