Rico v. United States

On March 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Antonio Rico v. United States. Plaintiff Antonio Rico, a technology entrepreneur, challenged the constitutionality of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Rico alleged that his former startup was subjected to a civil RICO lawsuit based on novel and overbroad interpretations of what constitutes a “pattern of racketeering activity.” He argued that the statute’s vague language violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by failing to provide fair notice and enabling arbitrary enforcement. The United States, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defended the law as a critical tool for dismantling sophisticated criminal enterprises. The case did not involve a physical victim or traditional investigator; it centered on a direct facial challenge to the federal statute, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future prosecutorial overreach under the RICO framework.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold the constitutionality of the RICO Act. The majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, held that the statute provides sufficient clarity through decades of consistent judicial precedent and that the alleged vagueness did not reach the threshold for facial invalidation. The Court emphasized that remedy for specific misapplications lies in as-applied challenges, not voiding the entire statutory framework.

Whether the “pattern of racketeering activity” requirement in the RICO Act is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, and whether civil RICO provisions permit excessive prosecutorial and private litigant overreach against legitimate business structures.

The ruling reinforced the broad prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice in targeting organized crime and corporate fraud. Civil rights and business advocacy groups expressed concern that the decision would chill entrepreneurial innovation by allowing aggressive civil RICO suits to proceed. Conversely, law enforcement agencies praised the outcome as essential for maintaining a robust tool against evolving criminal conspiracies. The case sparked renewed legislative debate over potential RICO reform to narrow its civil liability provisions while preserving its criminal enforcement capabilities.