Law Center Search Results

In an opinion that narrows the scope of a widely used federal racketeering statute, the Supreme Court on 4/26/00 held that a person injured by an overt act done in furtherance of a civil conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act does not have a civil cause of action under the RICO Act if the overt act itself is not an act of racketeering. Petitioner Beck claimed that he was wrongfully terminated from his position as president and CEO of an insurance holding company after he reported the company’s unlawful acts of racketeering. Beck sued the company’s senior officers and directors under RICO, alleging that his injury was proximately caused by an overt act—his termination as a whistleblower—done in furtherance of a RICO conspiracy and that he therefore had a cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Resolving a split among the circuits, the Court held that a person injured by an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy may not assert a civil RICO conspiracy claim under § 1964(c) if that overt act is not itself "racketeering activity," as defined in the statute. Justice Stevens, in an opinion joined by Justice Souter, dissented, asserting that nothing in the language of the statute required the overt act to be a racketeering activity to state a civil cause of action.