Supreme Court Split Over Trucker Fired For Unintentional CBD Use, Suing Under RICO Act
Supreme Court Split Over Trucker Fired For Unintentional CBD Use, Suing Under RICO Act
The U.S. Supreme Court is grappling with a complex case involving a former truck driver, Douglas Horn, who claims he was wrongfully fired after a failed drug test, which he attributes to a "CBD-rich medicine."
美國最高法院正在處理一起復雜的案件,涉及前卡車司機道格拉斯·霍恩聲稱因一次未能通過的藥物測試而被不當解僱,他將此歸因於一種「富含CBD的藥物」。
Horn is suing under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a law designed to combat organized crime, seeking triple damages for what he describes as a business or property injury.
霍恩根據《惡勢力影響和腐敗組織法案》進行起訴,這是一項旨在打擊有組織犯罪的法律,尋求三倍賠償金,以彌補他所稱的業務或財產損失。
Divided Court: 'Medical Marijuana Did Not Fire You'
分裂的法院:'醫用大麻沒有解僱你'
The court was divided during Tuesday's arguments. Some of the conservative justices seemed wary of allowing Horn's case to move forward, noted CNN, fearing it could lead to a surge in RICO lawsuits over routine personal injuries.
在週二的辯論中,法院意見分歧。一些保守派大法官似乎不願讓霍恩的案件繼續進行,有CNN指出,擔心這可能導致針對例行個人傷害的《惡勢力影響和腐敗組織法案》訴訟激增。
Justice Brett Kavanaugh called Horn's legal theory a "radical shift" in how tort claims are handled in the U.S., Chief Justice John Roberts also raised concerns about the broader implications of the case and Justice Clarence Thomas said, "Medical Marijuana did not fire you."
佈雷特·卡瓦諾大法官稱霍恩的法律理論是對美國處理侵權索賠方式的「激進轉變」,首席大法官約翰·羅伯茨也對該案的更廣泛影響提出了擔憂,而克拉倫斯·托馬斯大法官表示,「醫用大麻並未解僱你。」
Conversely, the Court's liberal justices, led by Justice Elena Kagan, argued Horn had indeed suffered a business injury. Kagan pointed out that losing one's job could be considered a harm to one's business under the RICO law. "If you've been injured in your business, which includes your employment, then you're entitled to threefold damages," Kagan stated, according to the New York Times.
相比之下,法院的自由派法官,由埃琳娜·卡根大法官領導,辯稱霍恩確實遭受了業務損失。卡根指出,失去工作可以被視爲《惡勢力影響和腐敗組織法案》下對企業的傷害。「如果在您的工作中受傷,這也包括您的就業,那麼您有資格獲得三倍賠償金,」卡根根據紐約時報的報道稱。
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed. "He's not claiming that he got ill because of the product. He's not saying he was personally injured. He didn't even know that he had ingested THC until the testing and the firing."
凱坦吉·布朗·傑克遜大法官同意。「他並未聲稱因爲產品導致疾病。他也沒有說自己受到了個人傷害。直到檢測和解僱他才知道自己已經攝入了THC。」
Read Also: Can Cannabis Reform Deliver Social Justice? 'We're Built On The Backs of Activists' Says Expert
閱讀更多:大麻改革是否能實現社會正義?專家表示:『我們建立在激進分子的努力之上』
What's It All About?
這是關於什麼的?
Horn's legal journey began in 2012 after he tried a CBD product called "Dixie X," which he believed did not contain THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis. After failing a drug test, Horn was fired. He then sued the companies behind the CBD product, including Medical Marijuana Inc. (OTC:MJNA), Dixie Holdings and Red Dice Holdings, alleging that they had engaged in a pattern of racketeering carried on through an enterprise that included mail and wire fraud.
霍恩的法律之旅始於2012年,當時他嘗試了一種名爲"Dixie X"的大麻產品,他相信其中不含THC,大麻的致幻成分。在未通過藥物檢測後,霍恩被解僱。然後他起訴了CBD產品背後的公司,包括醫療大麻股票有限公司(OTC:MJNA)、迪克西控股和紅骰子控股,聲稱它們通過一種包括郵件和電信詐騙在內的非法經營活動。
A federal district court initially ruled against Horn, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed his suit to proceed.
一個聯邦地區法院最初裁定不利於霍恩,但美國第二巡迴上訴法院允許他的訴訟繼續進行。
Medical Marijuana and the other companies argue Horn's injury is personal, not a business or property harm as required under RICO. They said a ruling in Horn's favor would dramatically expand the scope of civil RICO lawsuits, turning what they described as a "garden-variety products-liability" case into something much larger.
醫療大麻和其他公司稱霍恩的傷害是個人的,不是根據《刑事集團組織罪懲法案》所要求的業務或財產損害。他們表示,如果裁定有利於霍恩,將大大擴大民事詐騙罪案件的範圍,將他們描述爲「普通產品責任」案件轉變爲更大的案件。
A decision is expected next year.
預計明年會有一個決定。
Now Read:
現在就閱讀吧:
- Anthony Scaramucci Talks Cannabis Vs Crypto: Why He's 'Not a Huge Bull'—'The Bloom Is Off The Rose' For Stocks
- 安東尼·斯卡拉穆奇談大麻與加密貨幣:爲什麼他不是「強烈支持者」—— 股票的繁榮已經消退
Photo: Courtesy of SCOTUS Tours and Information
圖片:由美國最高法院旅遊與信息提供