John Bridge, et al. v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. et al
The court held that a RICO plaintiff asserting a claim predicated on mail fraud does not need to show that that plaintiff relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations.
553 U.S. 639 · No. 07-210 · 2007 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 9, 2008 · argued Apr 14, 2008
Economic activity · Miscellaneous economic regulation
Majority opinion: Clarence Thomas
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. John Bridge, et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
John Bridge, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a RICO plaintiff asserting a claim predicated on mail fraud does not need to show that that plaintiff relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2007 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Clarence ThomasWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- John Bridge, et al.Investor
- Respondent
- Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. et alInvestor
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 9, 2008DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. John Bridge, et al. lost.
- Apr 14, 2008ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Illinois Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
18 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous economic regulation, newest first.
- Kennedy v. Braidwood Management145 S. Ct. 2427Jun 27, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 2427Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System144 S. Ct. 2440Jul 1, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 2440Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Biden v. Nebraska600 U.S. 477Jun 30, 2023 · 600 U.S. 477Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation142 S. Ct. 2354Jun 24, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2354Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita142 S. Ct. 1968Jun 21, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1968Economic activity7–27–2 band
- American Hospital Association v. Becerra142 S. Ct. 1896Jun 15, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1896Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Biden v. Missouri142 S. Ct. 647Jan 13, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 647Economic activity5–45–4 band
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration142 S. Ct. 661Jan 13, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 661Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Allison Engine Company, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel. Roger L. Sanders and Roger L. Thacker553 U.S. 662Jun 9, 2008 · 553 U.S. 662Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Philadelphia Gear Corp.476 U.S. 426May 27, 1986 · 476 U.S. 426Economic activity6–36–3 band
- United States v. Clark et al.454 U.S. 555Jan 13, 1982 · 454 U.S. 555Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Zuber et al. v. Allen et al.396 U.S. 168Dec 9, 1969 · 396 U.S. 168Economic activity4–27–2 band
- Federal Housing Administration v. the Darlington, Inc.358 U.S. 84Nov 24, 1958 · 358 U.S. 84Economic activity5–36–3 band
- United States v. McNinch, Doing Business As Home Comfort Co., et al.356 U.S. 595May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 595Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Rainwater et al., Doing Business As R. S. Rainwater & Sons, et al. v. United States356 U.S. 590May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 590Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- O'Neill v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.348 U.S. 956Mar 7, 1955 · 348 U.S. 956Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Federal Trade Commission v. Rhodes Pharmacal Co., Inc. et al.348 U.S. 940Feb 14, 1955 · 348 U.S. 940Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- County Board of Arlington County et al. v. State Milk Commission.346 U.S. 932Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 932Economic activity8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.