{"id":78402,"date":"2024-10-15T10:59:08","date_gmt":"2024-10-15T18:59:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/10\/15\/supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-in-case-from-worker-fired-over-thc-test-following-use-of-cbd-product\/"},"modified":"2024-10-16T19:46:57","modified_gmt":"2024-10-17T03:46:57","slug":"supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-in-case-from-worker-fired-over-thc-test-following-use-of-cbd-product","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/10\/15\/supreme-court-hears-oral-argument-in-case-from-worker-fired-over-thc-test-following-use-of-cbd-product\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In Case From Worker Fired Over THC Test Following Use Of CBD Product"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in the case of a trucker who sued a cannabis company after he was fired over a positive THC test<\/a> that he says was caused by consuming a hemp-derived CBD product. Justices during questioning zeroed in on how exactly the worker was harmed by the incident and whether his losses qualify for triple damages under federal law.<\/p>\n

Douglas Horn filed a legal challenge against the business that made the cannabis product, Medical Marijuana Inc., in 2015, suing under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. He alleged the company falsely advertised the product as having \u201c0% THC,\u201d which is why he decided to try it for pain management. His employer later fired him after he tested positive for THC.<\/p>\n

The substance of the dispute doesn\u2019t center on cannabis law but instead on the boundaries of RICO itself. At issue is whether the statute allows Horn\u2019s civil claim to proceed.<\/p>\n

While RICO cases are generally associated with large-scale prosecutions of criminal organizations, the statute can be applied in civil matters as well. In this instance, Horn claims to have been \u201cinjured in his business or property\u201d because his employment was terminated due to the positive THC test. He alleges that Medical Marijuana Inc. committed mail and wire fraud, which caused his economic harm.<\/p>\n

The question before the high court whether \u201ceconomic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to \u2018business or property by reason of\u2019 the defendant\u2019s acts for purposes of civil RICO,\u201d according to a description on the court calendar.<\/p>\n

\n

But some justices at Tuesday\u2019s oral argument<\/a> appeared skeptical that Horn\u2019s firing was a personal injury issue at all. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for example, seemed to distinguish between ingesting the product itself\u2014which she said did not<\/em> cause harm to Horn\u2014and the subsequent firing, which may be distinct from a \u201cpersonal injury.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are personal injury claims that derive from a person being harmed by the ingestion of the product, right?\u201d she said. \u201cThey\u2019re bodily, physically harmed because they\u2019ve taken this thing. I don\u2019t read this claim to be that kind of injury. He\u2019s not saying that the product itself injured him in any way.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lisa Blatt, the lawyer representing Medical Marijuana Inc. at the hearing, dismissed that distinction.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf I ate poppyseed bagels and failed a drug test, it\u2019s a personal injury,\u201d Blatt said. \u201cIf I took a medicine like doxycycline, which is an antibiotic, and I can\u2019t be out in the sun and I lose my job as a lifeguard, it\u2019s a personal injury claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBut why are you saying that?\u201d Jackson shot back, looking for some sort of grounding in legal precedent. \u201cI mean, you\u2019re just saying that.\u201d<\/p>\n

The distinction matters because in Medical Marijuana\u2019s view, RICO doesn\u2019t allow victims to recover triple damages for personal injuries.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one under this statute can ever recover for personal injuries, full stop. Never ever,\u201d Blatt told the court.<\/p>\n

Justice Elena Kagen pointed out that at it\u2019s core, the case is \u201cnot a good RICO claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHe buys this thing, he ingests this thing and someone else fires him,\u201d she told Blatt. \u201cThis is not a good RICO claim for that reason. But it has nothing to do with the reason that you\u2019re giving.\u201d<\/p>\n

Easha Anand, the attorney for Horn, acknowledged later in the hearing that the fired trucker has \u201ca heavy burden on remand\u201d if the Supreme Court allows the case to proceed, \u201cbut that\u2019s not the argument before you.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anand added that she believes her side can demonstrate that the business harm Horn suffered was the direct result of a civil RICO violation on Medical Marijuana Inc.\u2019s behalf, but emphasized that that\u2019s a separate question than what\u2019s before justices in the current matter.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe think we can prove proximate cause,\u201d Anand said, \u201cbut again, that\u2019s a question for remand, not for this court.\u201d<\/p>\n

The case is Medical Marijuana Inc. v. Horn<\/a> and is expected to be decided by the high court by June.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previously sided with Horn and allowed the RICO suit to proceed, writing that his \u201ctermination cost him current and future wages and his insurance and pension benefits\u2013all of which were tied to his employment.\u201d That injury falls under the plain meaning of the word \u201cbusiness\u201d in the RICO statute, the opinion said.<\/p>\n

But Medical Marijuana Inc. appealed that ruling, and Supreme Court justices agreed to take up the case in April.<\/p>\n

The business contends that \u201cRICO\u2019s text is clear\u201d\u2014but in the other direction.<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiffs cannot sue for personal injuries. Plaintiffs cannot bypass that bar by brandishing receipts for the economic costs of personal injuries. Case closed,\u201d the company\u2019s most recent brief says.<\/p>\n

A number of notable groups have filed friend-of-the-court\u00a0briefs\u00a0in the case, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Hemp Roundtable and others.<\/p>\n

The Chamber of Commerce says the Second Circuit\u2019s earlier ruling in the case was wrongly reasoned, warning that an overly expansive reading of RICO damages could \u201cexplode\u201d the statute.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Second Circuit was dead wrong to characterize this case as arising from a \u2018defect\u2026inherent in the statute as written\u2019 that only Congress can fix,\u201d it said. \u201cCongress did its job, and allowed plaintiffs to recover only for injuries to \u2018business or property\u2019\u2014not for personal injuries and their indirect economic consequences. The necessary limits are textual and should be enforced in accord with civil RICO\u2019s established focus on economic injury.\u201d<\/p>\n

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable, for its part, told justices in its amicus brief that the hemp industry would be \u201cadversely affected\u201d if the court\u2019s ruling ultimately expands businesses\u2019 liability in tort cases.<\/p>\n

\u201cHere, the RICO targets are industry participants,\u201d the trade group said, arguing that the hemp industry is \u201cmulti-layered and creates a myriad of societal benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe threat of expansive liability aimed at those in the industry directly jeopardizes the Roundtable and its mission,\u201d its filing says.<\/p>\n

In another amicus filing, the American Association for Justice sides with Horn, arguing that Medical Marijuana Inc.\u2019s claims about personal injury cases \u201chave no basis in the real world and cannot justify limiting the reach of civil RICO.\u201d<\/p>\n

Given the court\u2019s focus on RICO and unpacking the limits of that federal law, even groups far from the hemp industry have weighed in. The Human Trafficking Legal Center, for example, opposes Medical Marijuana Inc.\u2019s reading of the statute because it says such a narrow view \u201ccould bar trafficking survivors from pursuing RICO claims for economic injuries that flow from personal injuries.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf petitioners\u2019 rule reigns, trafficking survivors who have endured a similar plight\u2026might not receive due compensation for their economic injuries,\u201d the advocacy group said in its brief. \u201cTheir captors and others like them could perpetrate trafficking and racketeering activities without having to face the deterrent of trebled damages.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a separate case that was settled in January, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rehired and is providing back pay to a\u00a0special agent who was fired after testing positive for THC that he attributed to CBD<\/a>\u00a0he was taking as an opioid alternative for chronic pain, with the agency reaching an agreement in a lawsuit challenging the termination.<\/p>\n

Other cases currently in federal courts have been plumbing the boundaries of Second Amendment rights as they relate to marijuana users. Earlier this month, for example, lawyers in an appeals court case\u00a0faced off over when the government may lawfully disarm someone for using marijuana<\/a>. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that merely a person\u2019s recent use of the drug is sufficient to establish that they\u2019re in violation of the law and should not legally be able to possess a gun.<\/p>\n

Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, pushed back on the government\u2019s position, noting at oral argument on Tuesday that a recently published opinion within the same judicial circuit held that\u00a0while \u201csome limits on a\u00a0presently<\/em>\u00a0intoxicated person\u2019s right to carry a weapon\u201d may be constitutional, \u201cdisarming a sober person based on past substance usage\u201d is not<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That case is\u00a0U.S. v. Daniels<\/em>, which earlier this year was\u00a0set to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0but was among\u00a0a number of firearms-related cases remanded back to lower courts<\/a>\u00a0following a separate ruling about firearms and domestic violence.<\/p>\n

Courts across the country have been considering the constitutionality of the government\u2019s ban on gun and ammunition ownership by people who use marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law. And generally jurists have been skeptical of the sweeping Second Amendment restriction.<\/p>\n

\n

White House Press Secretary Falsely Says Biden \u2018Expunged\u2019 Marijuana Convictions, A Claim That\u2019s Been Repeatedly Debunked<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

The post Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In Case From Worker Fired Over THC Test Following Use Of CBD Product<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In Case From Worker Fired Over THC Test Following Use Of CBD Product<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in the case of a trucker who sued a cannabis company after he was fired over a positive THC test that he says was caused by consuming a hemp-derived CBD product. Justices during questioning zeroed in on how exactly the workerContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78402"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78402"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78402\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":78403,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78402\/revisions\/78403"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}