Under Section 1964(a) of RICO, Federal courts have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enjoin activities that are RICO violations. Section 1964(c) should be interpreted as granting the right of private persons to sue and obtain injunctive relief. The usefulness of a RICO injunction to a private citizen is clear. Without having to wait for the Attorney General to act, a citizen can get a court order requiring RICO activities to terminate. The injunction could include a divestiture order, restrictions on personal associations, or other restrictions to ensure that the prohibited activities will cease. Even if the courts interpret the language of 18 U.S.C. section 1964 as not specifically granting the right of private persons to obtain injunctive relief, they may imply the right. In Cort v. Ash, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined four factors relevant to determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing it. These factors are (1) the plaintiff's being one of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; (2) an indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, to create or deny such a remedy; (3) consistency with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff; and (4) the cause of action not being traditionally relegated to State law. A total of 76 footnotes are provided.