Supreme Court: Abortion Protesters Not in Violation of RICO-Scheidler V. National Organization for Women, Inc

By Marder, Jennifer | American Journal of Law & Medicine, January 1, 2003 | Go to article overview

Supreme Court: Abortion Protesters Not in Violation of RICO-Scheidler V. National Organization for Women, Inc


Marder, Jennifer, American Journal of Law & Medicine


Supreme Court: Abortion Protesters Not in Violation of RICO-Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.1-The U.S. Supreme Court held "that petitioners did not commit extortion because they did not 'obtain' property from respondents as required by the Hobbs Act."2 The respondents in this case included the National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW), a "national nonprofit organization that supports the legal availability of abortion"3 and two clinics that perform abortions. The petitioners were Joseph Scheidler, a coalition of anti-abortion groups known as the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), and other organizations and individuals that oppose legal abortion. The respondents brought a class action suit alleging that the petitioners had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)4 by their participation in a nationwide conspiracy to shut down clinics that perform abortions through a "pattern of racketeering activity."5 The respondents further alleged that Petitioners' activities included acts of extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act.6

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the respondents' claims.7 The respondents appealed and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.8 The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed and remanded.9 On remand, the jury awarded damages to Respondents and the district court issued a "permanent nationwide injunction prohibiting petitioners from obstructing access to the clinics, trespassing on clinic property, damaging clinic property, or using violence or threats of violence against the clinics, their employees, or their patients."10 The petitioners appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed in relevant part.11

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve two questions. The first question was whether the petitioners committed extortion as defined by the Hobbs Act.12 The second question was whether the respondents may be granted injunctive relief under section 1964 of RICO.13 Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, held that the petitioners did not obtain property from Respondents and therefore did not commit extortion under the Hobbs Act.14 The majority further held that there was no basis for the conclusion that Petitioners violated RICO.15 The Court thus reversed without considering private injunctive relief under section 1964(c) of RICO.16 The majority opinion reasoned that because the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a RICO violation must be reversed, the judgment that Petitioners violated RICO must also be reversed.17

In its analysis of the extortion issue, the Court stated that Congress used the New York Penal Code and the Field Code, a 19th-century model penal code, in formulating the Hobbs Act.18 Both of these sources defined extortion as "the obtaining of property from another with his consent, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear or under the color of official right."19 The Court also referred to an earlier decision "that the 'obtaining' requirement of extortion under New York law entailed both a deprivation and acquisition of property."20 Similarly, the Court construed the Hobbs Act provision in question, as it had in the past, to require both deprivation and acquisition.21

The majority acknowledged that the petitioners "interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived respondents of their ability to exercise their property rights."22 The Court noted that even Petitioners' counsel conceded "that aspects of his clients' conduct were criminal."23 The Court emphasized, however, that such interference and disruption did not constitute coercion regardless of the result.24 Even if Petitioners deprived the Respondents' of their property rights, Petitioners did not acquire, or "obtain," the Respondents' property.25 The majority opinion further explained that "petitioners neither pursued nor received 'something of value from' respondents that they could exercise, transfer, or sell.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Supreme Court: Abortion Protesters Not in Violation of RICO-Scheidler V. National Organization for Women, Inc
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.