## Facts

- The United States sued major cigarette manufacturers and related entities in a civil action alleging a decades-long scheme to mislead the public about smoking, addiction, and secondhand smoke.
- The government brought the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), seeking equitable relief under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a).
- The government sought disgorgement of roughly $280 billion, calculated as past profits allegedly obtained through the fraudulent scheme.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing disgorgement is not authorized by § 1964(a) because it does not “prevent and restrain” future RICO violations and is instead retrospective.
- The district court denied the motion, concluded disgorgement might be available, and certified the legal question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), which authorizes orders to “prevent and restrain” RICO violations, permits disgorgement of defendants’ past profits in a civil enforcement action brought by the United States.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of partial summary judgment on disgorgement.
- The court held that disgorgement of past profits is not an available remedy under RICO § 1964(a) in this case.
- The court granted partial summary judgment for defendants on the government’s disgorgement claim, leaving only forward-looking remedies potentially available under § 1964(a).

## Legal Principles

- RICO § 1964(a) limits equitable relief to remedies that are prospective and aimed at “prevent[ing] and restrain[ing]” future violations, not punishing past misconduct.
- The statutory examples in § 1964(a) (divestiture, restrictions on future activities, dissolution or reorganization) confirm a forward-looking remedial focus.
- A monetary award stripping past profits, without being structured as a device to stop future violations, is retrospective and falls outside § 1964(a).
- RICO’s remedial structure supports this limit: Congress expressly provided monetary recovery mechanisms elsewhere (e.g., private treble damages under § 1964(c)), indicating § 1964(a) is not a general monetary-remedy provision.
- Deterrent effects alone do not convert a backward-looking disgorgement demand into prospective relief authorized by § 1964(a).

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that RICO § 1964(a) authorizes only forward-looking equitable relief to prevent and restrain future RICO violations, and therefore the United States could not obtain disgorgement of defendants’ past profits under that provision.


United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 396 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2005)