The U.S. Supreme Court case National Organization for Women, Inc., etc., et al. v. Joseph Scheidler et al., 1993 revolved around the issue of whether or not anti-abortion protests fell under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The National Organization for Women (NOW) and two abortion clinics sued Joseph Scheidler and other pro-life activists, alleging that their protest activities amounted to extortion as defined by the Hobbs Act—a federal law prohibiting robbery or extortion affecting interstate commerce—and thus constituted a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO. In this case, the court held that private litigants may bring civil RICO actions based on predicate acts that do not require an economic motive; therefore, NOW's claim could proceed even though defendants' alleged conduct was motivated by political rather than economic concerns.

In the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case National Organization for Women, Inc., etc., et al. v. Joseph Scheidler et al., Justice David Souter argued that anti-abortion protests could be classified as extortion under the Hobbs Act. He maintained that protesters who obstructed access to abortion clinics were effectively seizing control over these facilities and depriving their owners of property rights, which constituted an act of extortion according to his interpretation of the law. Furthermore, he contended that this broad application was consistent with Congress's intent when it enacted RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). Therefore, in contrast to majority view which held otherwise, Souter believed such actions by protesters fell within scope of federal racketeering laws.