In the case of Robert G. Holmes, Jr. v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation et al., 1991, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a private plaintiff could not bring a civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) claim based on predicate acts of securities fraud unless he had demonstrated that he was directly harmed by those acts. The court held that RICO's "by reason of" language required proof that the defendant's violation led to an injury to business or property and caused direct harm to the plaintiff’s interests - not just indirect harm through its impact on market conditions generally. This ruling clarified how causation should be established in civil RICO cases involving securities fraud as predicate offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Robert G. Holmes, Jr. v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow a private cause of action under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was not supported by the text or legislative history of the statute itself. He contended that Congress did not intend for RICO to be used as a tool for private parties seeking damages from alleged fraudsters in securities transactions, but rather as a weapon against organized crime syndicates involved in racketeering activities such as illegal gambling and drug trafficking. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on "policy considerations" instead of clear statutory language to justify their interpretation of RICO, stating that it is not within the Court's purview to rewrite laws based on perceived policy needs or societal trends.