Questions presented:

SCOTUS Records

01-1118 SCHEIDLER v. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC. Ruling below: CA 7, 267 F.3d 687. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly held, in acknowledged conflict with the Ninth Circuit, that injunctive relief is available in a private civil action for treble damages brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). 2. Whether the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce "by robbery or extortion" - and which defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with [the owner's] consent," where such consent is "induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear" (18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) (emphasis added)) - criminalizes the activities of political protesters who engage in sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct the public's access to a business's premises and interfere with the freedom of putative customers to obtain services offered there. 3. Whether, in this civil RICO action based on the nationwide conduct of thousands of abortion protesters over a 15-year period, the jury's determination of liability and award of treble damages - and the procedures and instructions used by the trial court to channel the jury's decisionmaking - satisfied the exacting standards for the protection of First Amendment rights mandated by NAACP v. Claibome Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982). 01-1119 OPERATION RESCUE v. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC. Ruling below: CA 7, 267 F.3d 687. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in ruling, in conflict with the Ninth Circuit, that private civil litigants may obtain injunctive relief under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute? 2. Whether the "obtaining of property" element of the federal extortion statute, which is a predicate offense for civil RICO, may be satisfied, as the Seventh Circuit held, merely by a showing of "interference with the rights" of another? 3. Whether civil RICO liability may be imposed where the jury is instructed on "generic" state extortion law, instead of the pertinent elements of each state's extortion law, as a RICO predicate offense? 4. Whether the Seventh Circuit erred by affirming civil liability based on guilt by association and in holding, in conflict with the Second Circuit, that the First Amendment does not require a finder of fact to identify the alleged acts of unlawful conduct, and their alleged perpetrators, before imposing civil liability upon defendants engaged in protected expressive activity? CERT. GRANTED: 4/22/02 Limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petitions. Consolidated for one hour oral argument.