Humana Inc., et al. v. Mary Forsyth et al.
Decided January 20, 1999. Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
Docket 97-303 · 525 U.S. 299 (1999) · Cited 262 times
Holding
Because RICO advances the State’s interest in combating insurance fraud, and does not frustrate any articulated Nevada policy or disturb the State’s administrative regime, the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not block the respondent policy beneficiaries’ recourse to RICO in this case.
The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court — read the official opinion for authority.
How the Justices voted
Decided 9–0.
Majority · 9
“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. Source: the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.), Washington University.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · 463 U.S. 85 (1983)
- United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn. · 322 U.S. 533 (1944)
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc. · 393 U.S. 453 (1969)
- Paul v. Virginia · 75 U.S. 168 (1869)
- United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe · 508 U.S. 491 (1993)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Barry · 438 U.S. 531 (1978)
- Carter v. Virginia · 321 U.S. 131 (1944)
Official text
Read the official opinion (U.S. Reports, govinfo.gov)
Explore from here
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (1999). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-07-03. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).