Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (2003)

Last updated
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 4, 2002
Decided February 26, 2003
Full case nameScheidler v. National Organization for Women
Citations537 U.S. 393 ( more )
123 S. Ct. 1057, 154 L. Ed. 2d 991, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 1738
Case history
Prior National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler , 510 U.S. 249 (1994); jury verdict and permanent injunction affirmed, 267 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, 535 U.S. 1016(2002).
SubsequentRemanded, 91 F. App'x 510 (7th Cir. 2004); rehearing en banc denied, 396 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 545 U.S. 1151(2005); reversed, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women , 547 U.S. 9 (2006).
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceGinsburg, joined by Breyer
DissentStevens

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case involving whether abortion providers could receive damages from protesters under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. [1] National Organization for Women (NOW) obtained class status for women seeking the use of women's health clinics and began its court battle against Joseph Scheidler and PLAN et al. in 1986. In this particular case, the court's opinion was that extortion did not apply to the defendants' actions because they did not obtain any property from the respondents (NOW and the class of women).

Contents

RICO Act

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was cited by NOW as an attempt to stop PLAN and Scheidler from protesting. NOW claimed that PLAN's actions constituted extortion because they were attempting to shut down abortion clinics, depriving the staff and the patients of their rights.

FACE Act of 1994

FACE stands for Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, and protects the rights of patients trying to enter abortion clinics. This was important because this law had not yet passed when the first case National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler in Scheidler V. NOW was decided.

Procedural history

In 1980, Joseph Scheidler began the Pro-Life Action League, a non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to ending abortion. [2] As the abortion debate grew increasingly contentious, extreme anti-abortion activists began using violence to disrupt women’s health clinics across the country. [3] In 1986, NOW filed a complaint with the Federal court citing antitrust laws. [4] Then, in 1989, NOW expanded its suit, adding charges of extortion and RICO violations. In 1991, a trial judge dismissed the suit stating that because no economic gains were realized by Joseph Scheidler or PLAN, extortion did not apply. This was over-turned by the Supreme court in 1993. [5] On April 20, 1998 Scheidler, PLAN et al. were declared racketeers under RICO by a jury and triple damages were awarded to NOW as a result of this ruling. In 2001, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld this ruling. [6] It was brought before the Supreme court (again) in 2002. Arguments began December 4, 2002. [1]

Arguments

The chief argument for NOW was that the “property at issue is a business’s intangible right to exercise exclusive control over the use of its assets, (a) defendant obtains that property by obtaining control over the use of those assets.” The chief argument for Scheidler was “to conclude that such actions constituted extortion would effectively discard the statutory requirement that property must be obtained from another.”

The Court's decision

The decision was delivered by Justice Rehnquist. The court held that “Petitioners did not commit extortion within the Hobbs Act’s meaning because they did not ‘obtain’ property from respondents. “if the distinction between extortion and coercion, which we find controls these cases, is to be abandoned, such a significant expansion of the law’s coverage must come from Congress, and not from the courts.”

Ginsburg's Concurrence

The Justices expressed concern over the interpretation of RICO and maintained that with the passage of the FACE act, Congress recognized that RICO wouldn't apply to a clinic in this way.

"RICO, which empowers both prosecutors and private enforcers, imposes severe criminal penalties and hefty civil liability on those engaged in conduct within the Act's compass. It has already "evolv[ed] into something quite different from the original conception of its enactors," warranting "concern[s] over the consequences of an unbridled reading of the statute,". The Court is rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO's domain further by endorsing the expansive definition of "extortion" adopted by the Seventh Circuit." [7]

The court also noted that with the passage of the FACE act, Congress stipulated that RICO did not apply to cases such as this.

Dissenting opinion

Justice Stevens notes that RICO has been applied in this manner for quite some time by multiple courts. "For decades federal judges have uniformly given the term "property" an expansive construction that encompasses the intangible right to exercise exclusive control over the lawful use of business assets. The right to serve customers or to solicit new business is thus a protected property right. The use of violence or threats of violence to persuade the owner of a business to surrender control of such an intangible right is an appropriation of control embraced by the term "obtaining." Recognizing this settled definition of property, as I believe one must, the conclusion that petitioners obtained this property from respondents is amply supported by the evidence in the record." [8]

He also pointedly adds that withdrawing RICO claims will decrease the severity of the crimes, possibly encouraging more such crimes to be committed.

"Third, given the fact that Congress has enacted specific legislation responsive to the concerns that gave rise to these cases, the principal beneficiaries of the Court's dramatic retreat from the position that federal prosecutors and federal courts have maintained throughout the history of this important statute will certainly be the class of professional criminals whose conduct persuaded Congress that the public needed federal protection from extortion." [9]

Influence

This case had the possibility to influence the interpretation of many laws. The first amendment was cited by Scheidler in his defense. [10] Scheidler’s lawyers contested that he and PLAN had the right to assemble and make speeches within the public areas around the clinics. This also had bearing on other actions such as union strikes [11] and even peaceful protests such as the civil rights struggles in the 1950s. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act</span> US federal law

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States abortion-rights movement</span> Support for womens right to elective abortion

The United States abortion-rights movement is a sociopolitical movement in the United States supporting the view that a woman should have the legal right to an elective abortion, meaning the right to terminate her pregnancy, and is part of a broader global abortion-rights movement. The movement consists of a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body.

Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the persons set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit.

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 547 U.S. 9 (2006), was a lengthy and high-profile U.S. legal case interpreting and applying the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): a law originally drafted to combat the mafia and organized crime, the Hobbs Act: an anti-extortion law prohibiting interference with commerce by violence or threat of violence, and the Travel Act: a law prohibiting interstate travel in support of racketeering.

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 1985(3) of The Civil Rights Act of 1871 does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics. Alexandria Health Clinic, along with several other abortion clinics, sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from blocking the entrance to clinics in Washington D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hobbs Act</span>

The Hobbs Act, named after United States Representative Sam Hobbs (D-AL) and codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is a United States federal law enacted in 1946 that provides:

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so, commits, or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane Wood</span> American judge

Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) could apply to enterprises without economic motives; anti-abortion protesters could thus be prosecuted under it. An organization without an economic motive can still affect interstate or foreign commerce and thus satisfy the Act's definition of a racketeering enterprise.

Governments sometimes take measures designed to afford legal protection of access to abortion. Such legislation often seeks to guard facilities which provide induced abortion against obstruction, vandalism, picketing, and other actions, or to protect patients and employees of such facilities from threats and harassment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Organization for Women</span> American feminist organization

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is an American feminist organization. Founded in 1966, it is legally a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. The organization consists of 550 chapters in all 50 U.S. states and in Washington, D.C. It is the largest feminist organization in the United States with around 500,000 members. NOW is regarded as one of the main liberal feminist organizations in the US, and primarily lobbies for gender equality within the existing political system. NOW campaigns for constitutional equality, economic justice, reproductive rights, LGBTQIA+ rights and racial justice, and against violence against women.

This is a timeline of reproductive rights legislation, a chronological list of laws and legal decisions affecting human reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights pertaining to issues of reproduction and reproductive health. These rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence. Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization, abortion, and contraception, and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).

The history of Operation Rescue involves the split of an American anti-abortion group into the two separate organizations Operation Rescue and Operation Save America.

The Pro-Life Action League is an American anti-abortion organization founded by Joseph M. Scheidler in Chicago in 1980. The organization's sole mission is to end abortion. Joe Scheidler was the national director, his son, Eric Scheidler, is the executive director, and his wife, Ann Scheidler, is the vice-president of the organization.

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) applied to certain types of corporation-individual organizations. In this case, the Court decided unanimously to apply it to respondent Don King.

Several statutes, mostly codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, provide for federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States. Federal prosecutions of public corruption under the Hobbs Act, the mail and wire fraud statutes, including the honest services fraud provision, the Travel Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) began in the 1970s. "Although none of these statutes was enacted in order to prosecute official corruption, each has been interpreted to provide a means to do so." The federal official bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd, and the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666 directly address public corruption.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.

While some protests of the anti-abortion movement use violent methods, most protesters use a range of physically non-violent tactics, which may nonetheless include emotionally violent acts, such as intimidation or harassment.

Susan Hill was an abortion rights activist from Durham, North Carolina. She was President of the National Women's Health Organization in North Carolina, helping oversee a group of abortion clinics in the Southeast. She is most celebrated for her commitment to women's reproductive rights, with the National Organization for Women writing about Hill "She went on to open the first abortion clinic in the state of Florida and was a founding member of both the National Abortion Federation and the National Coalition of Abortion Providers."

Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting) represents formal legal changes and reforms regarding women's rights in the United States. That includes actual law reforms as well as other formal changes, such as reforms through new interpretations of laws by precedents. For such things outside as well as in the United States, see Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting). The right to vote is exempted from the timeline: for that right, see Timeline of women's suffrage in the United States. The timeline also excludes ideological changes and events within feminism and antifeminism: for that, see Timeline of feminism in the United States.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."

References

  1. 1 2 Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003).
  2. ↑ Scheidler, Joe. "Winter 2005 Action News—History, 1980-87 (Part 1)". Prolifeaction.org. Retrieved 2012-04-04.
  3. ↑ "NOW v. Scheidler Timeline: The Complete Story". Now.org. Retrieved 2012-04-04.
  4. ↑ "Now V. Scheidler". Thomas More Society. 1999-07-16. Retrieved 2012-04-04.
  5. ↑ National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler , 510 U.S. 249 (1993).
  6. ↑ Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 267F.3d687 ( 7th Cir. 2001).
  7. ↑ Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 412 (Ginsburg, J., concurring).
  8. ↑ Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 412 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  9. ↑ Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 417 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
  10. ↑ "First Amendment Library - Case". Archive.firstamendmentcenter.org. Retrieved 2012-04-04.
  11. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-05-20. Retrieved 2012-04-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  12. ↑ "NOW's arguments - Chicago Tribune". Articles.chicagotribune.com. 2003-04-05. Retrieved 2012-04-04.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.