In the case of H. J. Inc., et al. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., et al., 1988, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret and clarify the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The plaintiffs, customers of Northwestern Bell, alleged that the company had bribed members of a state regulatory body in order to secure favorable rates for its services - an act they claimed constituted racketeering under RICO law. The key issue before the court was whether these allegations could be considered "a pattern of racketeering activity," as required by RICO statute. In a majority decision written by Justice Brennan, it ruled that while two acts are necessary to establish such a pattern, they may not always be sufficient; there must also be evidence indicating continuity over time or threat thereof. This ruling broadened interpretation of what constitutes 'racketeering' under federal law and clarified how courts should apply this standard when considering similar cases in future.

In the dissenting opinion for H. J. Inc., et al v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., et al, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was too broad and vague, which could potentially lead to misuse or abuse of power by prosecutors. He contended that a "pattern" under RICO should be interpreted as requiring more than just two acts of racketeering activity within ten years; it should involve an ongoing organization or regular way of conducting affairs rather than sporadic activities over time. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history instead of clear statutory language in interpreting what constitutes a pattern under RICO law.