On April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court significantly expanded the scope of injuries entitled to treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The Supreme Court held in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn that "a plaintiff may seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss resulted from a personal injury."1 For example, if a technology company makes misrepresentations about its products' risks and those risks result in harm to a small-business owner, that business owner may recover for lost business revenue if the injuries force him to close his business. The Supreme Court's holding therefore increases the risk of treble damages for defendants and may weaken defendants' ability to dismiss RICO claims without extensive discovery.
Congress enacted RICO to provide legal recourse for individuals or entities harmed by organizations engaged in racketeering activity. Racketeering activity encompasses most criminal statutes, including mail and wire fraud.2 But in enacting RICO, Congress limited the cause of action to "[a]ny person injured in his business or property."3Medical Marijuana, Inc. resolved a circuit split among the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, which precluded relief for any economic loss that resulted from a personal injury, and the Second and Ninth Circuits, which permitted relief from economic injuries that derived from a personal injury.4
In Medical Marijuana, Inc., Douglas Horn, a truck driver, ingested a product marketed as containing only legal CBD (cannabidiol) when in fact it also contained federally illegal THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). To his surprise, Mr. Horn failed his employer's drug test and was subsequently terminated. He sued the product manufacturer, alleging a civil RICO claim (among others) premised on his lost employment. But the district court concluded that the RICO claim could not proceed because Mr. Horn's loss of employment derived from a personal injury that he suffered when the THC was introduced into his system. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and held that § 1964(c)'s use of "business" encompassed an individual's employment, and nothing in "RICO's text or structure" required that an injury to "business" not derive from a personal injury.5
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit's decision. The Court homed in on the ordinary meaning of "injure" in the context of § 1964(c) and concluded that a...
