Term: 2005
Docket: 04-1244
Joseph Scheidler, Et Al. v. National Organization For Women, Inc., Et Al.
- Pro
04-1244 SCHEIDLER V. NOW DECISION BELOW: 396 F3d 807 CONSOLIDATED WITH 04-1352 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 6/28/2005 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003), this Court reversed a decision of the Seventh Circuit that had affirmed a civil judgment and nationwide injunction entered under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against various anti-abortion protesters. In reversing, this Court explained (id. at 411 (emphasis added in part)): "Because all of 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. Without an underlying RICO violation, the injunction issued by the District Court must necessarily be vacated." On that basis, this Court determined that it "need not address the second question" on which certiorari had been granted, namely "whether a private plaintiff in a civil RICO action is entitled to injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. § 1964." Ibid. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Seventh Circuit, on remand, disregarded this Court's mandate by holding that "all" of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a RICO violation were not reversed, that the "judgment that petitioners violated RICO" was not necessarily reversed, and that the "injunction issued by the District Court" might not need to be vacated. 2. Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly held, in conflict with decisions of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), can be read to punish acts or threats of physical violence against "any person or property" in a manner that "in any way or degree * * * affects commerce," even if such acts or threats of violence are wholly unconnected to either extortion or robbery. 3. Whether this Court should again grant certiorari to resolve the deep and important intercircuit conflict over whether injunctive relief is available in a private civil action for treble damages brought under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 99-3076, 99-3336, 99-3891, 99-3892, 99-2050
In the 2005 case Joseph Scheidler, et al. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti-abortion activists who were accused by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and two abortion clinics of using threats and violence to shut down clinics across America. NOW argued that these actions constituted a form of extortion under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). However, in an unanimous decision led by Justice Stephen Breyer, it was determined that while their activities may have been coercive or even illegal under other laws, they did not constitute "obtaining property" from someone else - a key requirement for an act to be considered as extortion under federal law. Therefore, RICO could not be applied in this instance because no economic motive was involved on part of protesters.
In the dissenting opinion for Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the majority's interpretation of the Hobbs Act was too narrow. He contended that by defining "obtaining property" as requiring both deprivation and acquisition, it excluded many instances where someone uses force or threat to gain control over another person's property without necessarily acquiring it themselves - a situation he believed should still constitute extortion under federal law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute application in this case; arguing that even if protesters’ actions did not amount to “extortion,” they could still be seen as part of an illegal enterprise causing harm through a pattern of racketeering activity. Therefore, according to Justice Breyer, anti-abortion protests which obstructed clinic operations could fall within such definitions.
