April 2025 | Source: Reuters

On April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court made an important ruling in Medical Marijuana Inc. v. Horn, ruling that a marketable truck motorist could pursue a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against a cannabidiol (CBD) manufacturer. The ruling fell on a narrow 5-4 basis, on many legal issues associated with the intricate nature of CBD products and their impact on employers’ policies.

Supreme Court Decision on Medical Marijuana and Employment

Best Practices for Writing AI-Assisted Manuscripts

Dr.Nanci | Research design and Mixed Methods Research.

30 Jan, 2025

Dr.Nanci | Research design and Mixed Methods Research.
30 Jan, 2025

April 2025 | Source: Reuters

Background of the Case

In 2012, Doug Horn, a stage trucker from New York, suffered injuries from a truck accident. To manage his chronic pain, he purchased a recently developed CBD tincture, called “Dixie X,” which was marketed by Medical Marijuana Inc. and promoted as containing no “tetrahydrocannabinol (THC),” the psychoactive part of marijuana. Still, Horn was terminated from his position after an arbitrary drug test by his employer revealed THC in his system. He had been at this trucking job for over 10 years. Following the termination, independent lab tests confirmed that THC was present in the tincture after all, and it was not as advertised.

Legal Proceedings

In 2015, he and his partner concertedly filed an action on Medical Marijuana Inc.arguing that the company had made false representations about the THC content in its product, which in turn caused Horn to lose his job and suffer an economic injury as defined by the RICO Act, a federal law designed to prevent organized crime, but which also provides for civil lawsuits if a person suffers business or property damage due to a pattern of racketeering.
Horn did not have standing to sue under RICO because he had allegedly suffered a personal, rather than an economic, injury. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and allowed the action to move forward, and Medical Marijuana Inc.

Supreme Court's Decision

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, arguing that Horn’s getting fired for the alleged fraudulent behaviour to the company represented a valid economic injury under RICO. Justice Barrett noted that the word of the statute, “injured,” should be taken literally and meant the damage to a person’s business or property.
The dissenting justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, were worried about the possible expansion of RICO and cautioned about how these claims would turn personal injury cases into federal racketeering cases that conflict with the original meaning of RICO.

Begin Your Clinical Research Journey With Us!

Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court ruling in Medical Marijuana Inc. v. Horn provides federal racketeering liability to CBD manufacturers for the misrepresentation of their products, causing harm.
The Supreme Court ruling stressed the importance of providing accurate labelling on CBD products, particularly the variation in the THC laws across states, and to take extreme caution in labelling.
There are serious risks for employees in regulated industries regarding the TCH in their CBD products that affect employment. This decision affirms that CBD manufacturers need to be solely responsible for compliance regarding total transparency about the product they manufacture, which is safe for consumers.

What This Means for Researchers

The U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding medical marijuana and employment law indicates a significant change in how CBD products will be treated by the law. For researchers in pharmacology, health care, and cannabis studies, this decision emphasizes the need to be more careful around both the development and marketing of CBD-based products. Researchers will want to make sure they meet any new legal obligations that arise, especially regarding the claims about THC levels, and if they affect consumer safety.

How Pubrica Supports These Changes

Pubrica makes it easy for researchers to navigate legal complexities by offering compliant research services. We support manuscript preparation that agrees with the most current regulations and practices, which will allow you to report your results responsibly, transparently, and traceably. Our expert team can support research teams’ literature reviews, data analysis, and submission to journals.

Pubrica’s Viewpoint

Pubrica recognizes the increasing need for regulatory and compliance standards in CBD research. Pubrica will remain proactive in supporting researchers while conducting ethical and legal research and allowing researchers to provide credible and timely research in an emerging industry.

Conclusion

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. The Horn reinforces the need for correct labelling in the CBD industry. The ruling allowed a lawsuit under RICO and made manufacturers liable for false representations. The case illustrates the need for transparency and lawful conduct in the cannabis industry and should remind companies and consumers that they cannot continue to play fast and loose in the cannabis space.

Ensure your CBD research complies with evolving legal standards – partner with Pubrica for accurate, regulation-ready documentation. From labelling claims to manuscript submission, Pubrica supports end-to-end compliance for credible cannabis research.