Recently, the United States Supreme Court made a significant ruling regarding a truck driver who tested positive for marijuana after using CBD oil. Many articles rushed to report in bold headlines that the Supreme Court sided with a driver who used CBD oil. However, the issue at hand is more complex than the headlines suggest. As of now, this case does not alter how trucking companies handle drug and alcohol regulations.
On April 2, 2025, the United States Supreme Court rendered a 5-4 decision in Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1369 (2025). The facts of the case are as follows:
Commercial truck driver, Douglas Horn, was in a truck accident in 2012, resulting in a back injury. In search of relief, Horn came across Dixie X, a CBD oil sold by Medical Marijuana, Inc., which was marketed as containing 0% THC. Upon further investigation and research, Horn decided that Dixie X was safe to use and started using the oil for his back pain.
After using the oil for a few weeks, Horn was selected to submit to a random drug screening. The test came back positive, detecting THC in his system. Horn refused to complete a substance abuse program because he believed if he did so, that would be an admission of guilt. Thus, because he refused, his employer fired him. After losing his job due to the positive drug result, Horn ordered another bottle of Dixie X and sent it to a third party lab for testing. The lab tested the oil and found it was positive for THC.
Once receiving confirmation that the oil did contain THC, Horn sued Medical Marijuana, raising a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim. Under RICO, a plaintiff can seek damages for injuries to business or property caused by a racketeering enterprise. However, RICO claims do not allow recovery for personal injury.
In the District Court, Medical Marijuana was granted summary judgment, as the Court concluded that Horn’s injury was personal in nature, not related to his business or property. However, the Second Circuit reversed the decision because, according to a RICO claim, a plaintiff may recover damages only when injured in business or property. So the Second Circuit decided that Horn’s injury (being fired for mislabelled CBD oil) was business-related, qualifying him for recovery under RICO.
On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the issue to be decided was: “whether civil RICO bars recovery for all business or property harms that derive from a personal injury.”
The RICO statute expressly limits recovery for only harm to business and property, and thus all other types of recovery for harm are not eligible. The Justices were grappling with whether a personal injury that leads to harm to business or property may be recoverable under the RICO statute. Justice Barrett provided an illustrative example to the issue: If an owner of a gas station is beaten in a robbery, so much so that he must shut down his business, he may seek damages for his loss of business income regardless of the fact that his loss resulted from personal injury. The harm to business or property requirement under RICO only identifies what kinds of harm a plaintiff can recover for and is not a limitation on the causes of the harm. Essentially, the statute cares about the result of harm, not the cause.
Here, the Court held that “the phrase ‘injured in his business or property’ does not preclude recovery for all economic harms that result from personal injuries.” Therefore, the holding of the Second Circuit is affirmed.
Although the headlines surrounding this case seemed to challenge drug-related responses to marijuana, the case itself did not directly address those issues. Instead, the United States Supreme Court focused on an issue of statutory interpretation related to civil RICO claims. In this specific instance, Horn prevailed on that argument, but it's likely that more will follow. The substantive discussions surrounding CBD, THC, and Horn's job termination are likely to be argued further down the line, once all preliminary matters, like the current case, have been resolved.
If you have questions about this article, contact Eliza Mergenmeier (emergenmeier@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1268 or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1261.
© 2025 Setliff Law, P.C.| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy