In the case of Hemi Group, LLC and Kai Gachupin v. City of New York, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hemi Group and against the city. The dispute centered around an alleged violation by Hemi Group (an online cigarette retailer) of a federal law requiring out-of-state sellers to report sales data to state tax administrators. New York City claimed that this failure led to lost tax revenue as local customers avoided paying taxes on their purchases. However, the court found that there was not a direct enough link between Hemi's actions and any financial loss experienced by NYC for it to be held accountable under RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act). Essentially, while they acknowledged that some residents may have used these unreported purchases to evade taxes - such evasion is illegal behavior independent from what Hemi did or didn't do; thus breaking any chain of causation necessary for a RICO claim.

In the dissenting opinion for HEMI Group, LLC and Kai Gachupin v. City of New York, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of RICO was too narrow. She stated that it is not necessary for a defendant to directly cause harm to a plaintiff in order to be held liable under RICO; instead, it is sufficient if the defendant's actions were a substantial factor in causing the harm. In this case, she believed that Hemi Group’s failure to submit customer information had indeed been a substantial factor leading to lost tax revenue by New York City because without such data city could not pursue unpaid taxes from cigarette purchasers. Furthermore, she disagreed with majority’s view on proximate causation stating there can be more than one proximate cause of an injury and hence even though federal government also played role in loss suffered by city due its own failure at collecting taxes doesn’t absolve Hemi group from liability.