By: Randy D. Gordon*
Abstract
Throughout its history, the RICO statute has presented lawyers with something of an interpretive parlor game. It is indefinite along multiple dimensions and thereby given multiple interpretations, even down to the word level. In Medical Marijuana v. Horn, the Supreme Court set out to define one of RICO’s civil-standing provisions: Namely, whether the statute’s “injury to business or property” requirement can be satisfied when a plaintiff suffers both economic and personal injuries. In a 5-4 decision, members of the Court engaged in an interpretive battle over the meaning of the phrase and succeeded only in holding that civil RICO does not necessarily bar all claims for damages deriving from personal injuries. The Court can perhaps be forgiven for its skimpy holding, given that the record in the case was messy and contradictory (and was therefore not cert-worthy). But more troublesome is that everyone involved missed the point at which Horn, the plaintiff, suffered a possible RICO injury. For that and other reasons, the case is a muddle that will merely revive, rather than settle, disagreements in the lower courts.
* Ph.D. Edinburgh (Law); Ph.D. Kansas (English). Executive Professor, School of Law, Department of History, and College of Performance, Visualization & Fine Arts, Texas A&M University; Managing Partner, Dallas and Fort Worth Offices, Duane Morris, LLP. I wish to thank Grace Chapman, my research assistant and a student at Texas A&M School of Law, for her considerable contribution to the arguments and authorities cited below. The views expressed in this Article are mine alone and do not necessarily represent those of Texas A&M, Duane Morris, or my clients.