You'll hear argument first this morning in case 23365, medical marijuana versus horn.

Ms. Blatt?

Thank you.

May it please the Court.

RICO states that any person injured in his business or property by reason of racketeering

can sue, therefore, and recover threefold the damages he sustains.

Because RICO's cause of action excludes

personal injuries, RICO excludes damages resulting from personal injuries. The text differentiates

the injury from racketeering and the damages sustained from that injury, thus showing that

injury and damages are distinct. And the references to damages he sustains shows that damages are the losses suffered as a result of the injury.

Damages are not themselves the injury inflicted by the defendant.

This distinction tracks this Court's recognition that loss wages and medical expenses are classic damages from personal injuries.

Respondent's complaint alleges the personal injury of an unwanted ingestion of THC and the resulting

damages of lost wages. To quote the complaint, defendant's behavior caused plaintiff's

physical harm in the ingestion of Dixie and as a direct result of consuming this product,

he was dismissed from his employment. That's a personal injury claim outside Civil Rico.

Respondent argues that every economic loss is its own RICO injury, but not to worry because

RICO still bars non-pecuniary damages. But that view conflates injury and damages by treating

RICO's exclusion of personal injuries as just excluding a narrow type of damages, pain and

suffering and emotional distress. Respondent's rule also leaves the personal exclusion toothless,

since virtually all personal injuries result in monetary loss.

It is utterly implausible that Congress federalized every slip and fall involving RICO

...