Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 574

529US2

Unit: $U51

[09-26-01 10:31:04] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 494 (2000)

499

Opinion of the Court

and control of their enterprise through a pattern of rack-
eteering activity, in violation of § 1962(b); engaged in the
conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of
racketeering activity,
in violation of § 1962(c); and, most
importantly for present purposes, conspired to commit the
aforementioned acts, in violation of § 1962(d). With respect
to this last claim, petitioner’s theory was that his injury was
proximately caused by an overt act—namely, the termina-
tion of his employment—done in furtherance of respondents’
conspiracy, and that § 1964(c) therefore provided a cause of
action. Respondents ﬁled a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that employees who are terminated for refusing to
participate in RICO activities, or who threaten to report
RICO activities, do not have standing to sue under RICO for
damages from their loss of employment. The District Court
agreed and dismissed petitioner’s RICO conspiracy claim.
The Court of Appeals afﬁrmed, holding that a cause of action
under § 1964(c) for a violation of § 1962(d) is not available to
a person injured by an overt act in furtherance of a RICO
conspiracy unless the overt act is an act of racketeering.
162 F. 3d 1090, 1098 (CA11 1998). Since the overt act that
allegedly caused petitioner’s injury was not an act of rack-
eteering, see § 1961(1), it could not support a civil cause of
action. The court held, “RICO was enacted with an express
target—racketeering activity—and only those injuries that
are proximately caused by racketeering activity should be
actionable under the statute.”

Ibid.5

5 Although petitioner alleged violations of §§ 1962(a), (b), and (c), the
Court of Appeals concluded that he had presented no evidence of viola-
It therefore treated each of petitioner’s
tions of subsections (a) and (b).
substantive RICO claims as alleging a violation of § 1962(c).
162 F. 3d,
at 1095, n. 8. The court held that petitioner did not present evidence
regarding elements of his § 1962(c) claims and therefore afﬁrmed the
District Court’s order granting summary judgment for respondents with
respect to those claims.
Id., at 1095–1098. Petitioner does not challenge
the Court of Appeals’ conclusion with respect to his claims under
§§ 1962(a)–(c).