Court Appears Open To Fired Trucker Who Sued Over THC-Tainted Product
The driver claims Medical Marijuana Inc. injured his "business or property" under federal racketeering laws when it shipped the product to him, after he was assured it had none of the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. Justices will hear arguments about VA disability claims today.
The New York Times:
Supreme Court Leans Toward Truck Driver Fired Over Drug Test
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday over whether a truck driver fired for failing a drug test after using a “wellness product” which was falsely advertised to be free of THC may sue the manufacturer under a federal racketeering law. A majority of the justices seemed ready to side with the driver, Douglas Horn, on the narrow question before them: whether he could satisfy the law’s requirement that he had been injured in his “business or property.” But that is not the only hurdle Mr. Horn must clear to win under the law, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. (Liptak, 10/15)
Military.com:
Two Veterans Will Argue To Supreme Court That VA Disability Claims Aren't Getting 'Benefit Of Doubt'
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that challenges the Department of Veterans Affairs' handling of benefits applications and appeals, a question that could affect thousands of previously decided or current claims. In the case Bufkin v. McDonough, the plaintiffs challenged decisions by the VA and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying benefits for health conditions. They argue that the Veterans Board of Appeals, and later, the appeals court, failed to apply a "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule that should have resulted in disability compensation awards. (Kime, 10/15)
CNN:
Supreme Court Leaves In Place Pennsylvania Law Barring People Under 21 From Carrying Guns
The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a lower court ruling from Pennsylvania that allowed residents under 21 to carry firearms in public, though the justices declined for now to hear arguments in the case themselves. At issue was a state law that barred 18- to 20-year-olds from open carrying firearms during declared states of emergencies. The court’s decision tosses a federal appeals court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment. (Fritze, 10/15)
