The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of a former commercial truck driver who was fired after failing a drug test he claims was due to a CBD elixir that was advertised as containing no THC. Douglas Horn had been working as a trucker for 14 years and tried a product called Dixie X after a serious accident in 2012. Despite never using marijuana, he failed his drug test weeks later and filed a lawsuit in 2015 against Medical Marijuana, Inc., and other companies involved in the making and distribution of Dixie X, alleging violations of the Controlled Substances Act and engaging in mail and wire fraud.
The key issue before the Supreme Court is whether Horn is allowed to pursue his lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows civil lawsuits in certain circumstances and permits plaintiffs to seek triple damages. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the suit to proceed, but Medical Marijuana, Inc., has appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the RICO Act was not intended for products-liability suits and that allowing Horn to sue would open the floodgates for more civil RICO lawsuits.
The RICO Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970 to give prosecutors more power to target organized crime families. Some states have enacted their own versions of the law, with Georgia’s state RICO law being central to the election subversion case against former President Donald Trump. The federal law also allows individuals who have been “damaged” in “business or property” under certain circumstances to file private lawsuits, but some federal appeals courts have ruled that civil suits cannot be based on personal injury claims.
The case of Douglas Horn highlights the complexities of the legal system when it comes to CBD products and workplace drug testing. Despite the increasing popularity of CBD products and their legalization in many states, issues can arise when these products contain trace amounts of THC that can lead to failed drug tests. The outcome of this case could have implications for the regulation of CBD products, liability for companies involved in their production and distribution, and the ability of individuals to seek redress through civil lawsuits under the RICO Act.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, it will have to consider the potential impact of its ruling on the legal and regulatory framework surrounding CBD products, workplace drug testing policies, and civil liability for companies involved in the production and distribution of these products. The decision could have far-reaching implications for individuals like Douglas Horn who have been adversely affected by CBD products that contain THC, as well as for companies that may face increased exposure to civil lawsuits under the RICO Act for their involvement in these products. Overall, this case raises important questions about the intersection of law, commerce, and public health in the context of the rapidly growing CBD industry.
