31:
505:
S. C. §1951; 25 violations of state extortion law; 25 instances of attempting or conspiring to commit either federal or state extortion; 23 violations of the Travel Act, 18 U. S. C. §1952; and 23 instances of attempting to violate the Travel Act. The jury awarded $ 31,455.64 to respondent, the
National Women's Health Organization of Delaware, Inc., and $ 54,471.28 to the National Women's Health Organization of Summit, Inc. These damages were trebled pursuant to §1964(c). Additionally, the District Court entered a permanent
919:
527:
victims. The defendants did, however, according to the Court, interfere with the victims' ability to exercise their property rights. Coercion is a less serious crime than extortion, and is not covered by RICO. The decision left open the question of whether the law generally entitled private parties to injunctive relief (as opposed to after-the-fact monetary damages) in RICO cases.
480:, Andrew Scholberg, Conrad Wojnar, Timothy Murphy, Monica Migliorino, VitalMed Laboratories, Inc., the Pro-Life Action League, Inc. (PLAL), the Pro-Life Direct Action League, Inc. (PDAL), Operation Rescue, and Project Life. The plaintiffs included NOW and two abortion clinics, the Delaware Women's Health Organization, Inc., and the Summit Women's Health Organization, Inc.
389:
and on behalf of various abortion clinics and providers. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and injunctions under the RICO, Hobbs, and the Travel Acts, alleging that the defendants against whom the suit was filed are racketeering organizations engaging in a conspiracy to prevent access to health care
540:
could be supported as remedy for these acts. The appeals court attempted to remand these issues to the district court, but the defendants appealed to the
Supreme Court, on the grounds that the Seventh Circuit was ignoring the 2003 decision. The defendants also asked the court to decide whether the
504:
After a 7-week trial, a six-member jury concluded that petitioners violated the civil provisions of RICO. By answering a series of special interrogatory questions, the jury found, inter alia, that petitioners' alleged "pattern of racketeering activity" included 21 violations of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.
526:
The
Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal, though refused to consider free speech issues. In its 2003 decision, the court ruled that while the actions under consideration in the appeal might have been coercive, they were not extortive because the defendants did not "'obtain' property" from their
402:(PLAL), and specifically the Oklahoma Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN). The underlying issues in the case concerning access to abortion and the coercive and violent tactics used by some to prevent such access formed a central rallying point for both sides of the national abortion debate.
170:
1053 (7th Cir. 1994); complaint stricken in part, dismissed as to certain defendants; 897 F.Supp. 1047 (N.D. Ill. 1995); summary judgment granted in part to defendants, N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 1997; permanent injunction granted to plaintiffs, N.D. Ill. July 19, 1999; affirmed, 267 F.3d
535:
The case returned to the
Seventh Circuit, where the plaintiffs argued that while 117 violations of the RICO Act were addressed by the second Supreme Court decision, 4 violations of the Hobbs Act remained, constituting violence but not extortion. They also claimed that the
552:
did not participate in the decision. The Court held that the Hobbs Act did not cover violence unrelated to robbery or extortion. The Court also noted that
Congress's 1994 passage of FACE indicated that Congress did not view RICO as pertaining to this area.
457:
claims on the grounds that the protest groups were not in economic competition with the abortion clinics, and dismissed the RICO claims on the grounds that no "economic motive" was alleged. The dismissals were upheld by the
425:
against interference with abortion clinic operations, but the entire matter remained unsettled until the final decision in 2006 when the
Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Scheidler and PLAN (see below).
515:(The injunction was issued in 1999; "petitioners" refers to the original defendants, who were the parties making the appeal.) The case was appealed to the Seventh Circuit again, on several grounds, including the
509:
prohibiting petitioners from obstructing access to the clinics, trespassing on clinic property, damaging clinic property, or using violence or threats of violence against the clinics, their employees, or their
226:
The Hobbs Act did not apply to the use of violence to block access to abortion clinics, because physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the Act's scope. Seventh
Circuit reversed and
548:, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous (8-0) decision in favor of Scheidler and PLAN on February 28, 2006. Because he was not yet on the Court when the arguments were presented, Justice
830:
494:, founder of Operation Rescue who was facing over $ 100,000 in costs from other abortion clinic-related charges, settled the case against him, agreeing to a permanent personal injunction.
450:
115:
923:
858:
Kelly, Daniel B., Recent
Development, Defining Extortion: Rico, Hobbs, and Statutory Interpretation in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 123 S. Ct. 1057 (2003),
421:
on three separate occasions. A 2003 ruling that non-economic violence does not violate the RICO Act left other federal charges intact, including associated monetary damages and a
1020:
541:
Hobbs Act prohibits non-extortive violence, and to decide the still-open question of whether the law generally entitled private parties to injunctive relief in RICO cases.
490:
In 1997, class-action status was granted by the district court, certifying NOW as representing the class of all women seeking reproductive health care. In 1998,
459:
126:
441:
and violations of various state laws. In 1988, it was expanded to include
Randall Terry and Operation Rescue. In 1989, RICO and extortion claims were added.
934:
739:
697:
567:
209:
190:
176:
159:
148:
134:
79:
734:
185:
692:
668:
644:
346:
143:
516:
1025:
1005:
848:
817:
954:
990:
572:
484:
1015:
995:
1000:
465:
In 1994, the
Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, asserting that no economic motive was necessary to violate the RICO laws.
487:(FACE) went into effect, prohibiting the use of force or intimidation to block access to reproductive health care facilities.
766:
779:
498:
429:
The case was also notable for the legal skills at the disposal of and displayed by the National Organization for Women.
418:
35:
865:
Murray, Brian, Note, Protesters, Extortion, and Coercion: Preventing RICO from Chilling First Amendment Freedoms,
378:
58:
896:
Roth, Jaime, Comment, Reptiles in the Weeds: Civil RICO vs. the First Amendment in the Animal Rights Debate,
650:
111:
562:
720:
205:
172:
674:
345:, 547 U.S. 9 (2006), was a lengthy and high-profile U.S. legal case interpreting and applying the federal
122:
1010:
795:
437:
The suit against Scheidler and PLAN members was filed by NOW and supporting clinics in 1986, under the
883:
849:
Where Are We Now? Clinic Protection In The Wake Of Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.
880:
Scheidler, Joseph, et al. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al. / Operation Rescue v. NOW
619:
Where Have All of the Pro-Choice Lawyers Gone? An Analysis of Post-Roe Reproductive Rights Lawyering
842:
Cages, Clinics, and Consequences: The Chilling Problems of Controlling Special-Interest Extremism
903:
Beltran, Xavier, Note, Applying RICO to Eco-Activism: Fanning the Radical Flames of Eco-Terror,
873:
841:
413:
399:
938:
743:
701:
506:
438:
410:
The Circuit and Supreme courts heard appeals and the matter was eventually consolidated with
213:
194:
180:
163:
152:
138:
71:
879:
382:
945:
8:
537:
422:
282:
810:
802:
746:
704:
327:
197:
155:
365:
law prohibiting interference with commerce by violence or threat of violence, and the
963:
630:
250:
626:
605:
592:
391:
201:
54:
874:
Theft by Coercion: Extortion, Blackmail, and Hard Bargaining, Washburn Law Journal
783:
770:
763:
354:
274:
262:
74:
776:
350:
286:
258:
984:
491:
477:
395:
311:
Breyer, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
549:
294:
270:
242:
175:(7th Cir. 2001); rehearing denied, 7th Cir., Oct. 29, 2001; cert. granted,
972:
520:
390:
facilities providing abortion services. The suit's named defendants were
366:
130:
90:
462:. This decision conflicted with other RICO cases from other circuits.
654:
454:
386:
362:
358:
331:
86:
678:
369:: a law prohibiting interstate travel in support of racketeering.
108:
918:
618:
451:
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
831:
Defining the Scope of Extortion Liability After Scheidler v. NOW
316:
Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
30:
385:
in 1986 in federal district court on behalf of women seeking
890:
167:
119:
523:. The circuit court affirmed the lower court's decision.
476:
At this point, the defendants included John Patrick Ryan,
924:
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (547 U.S. 9)
1021:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
568:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 547
398:
protesters and organizations who were members of the
93:
2022; 74 U.S.L.W. 4149; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 120
717:National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
693:National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
669:National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
645:National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
546:Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.
468:The case was remanded back to the district court.
347:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
144:National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
24:Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.
129:1992); rehearing denied, 7th Cir., Aug. 4, 1992;
982:
204:510 (7th Cir. 2004); rehearing denied, 396 F.3d
381:("NOW") as plaintiff filed the suit as a civil
349:(RICO): a law originally drafted to combat the
835:NYU Journal of Legislation & Public Policy
931:Scheidler v. National Organization for Women
735:Scheidler v. National Organization for Women
497:Also 1998, as the Supreme Court summarizes:
405:
342:Scheidler v. National Organization for Women
186:Scheidler v. National Organization for Women
796:Docket page, including background documents
471:
860:Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
789:
412:National Organization for Women et al. v.
891:RICO use in other social justice contexts
886:, Medill News Service. 1 September 2005.
617:O'Connor, Karen and Yanus, Alixandra B.,
573:List of United States Supreme Court cases
485:Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
598:
183:1016 (2002); reversed and remanded,
756:
530:
444:
983:
611:
1026:Alliance Defending Freedom litigation
905:B.C. Environmental Affairs Law Review
372:
18:2006 United States Supreme Court case
585:
1006:United States class action case law
13:
823:
419:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1037:
991:United States Supreme Court cases
911:
417:. The case was argued before the
917:
809:Supreme Court docket updates on
801:Supreme Court docket updates on
631:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2007.00259.x
460:Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
208:(7th Cir. 2005); cert. granted,
29:
1016:National Organization for Women
996:United States abortion case law
941:9 (2006) is available from:
812:Scheidler, et al. v. NOW et al.
804:Operation Rescue v. NOW, et al.
379:National Organization for Women
158: (1994); rehearing denied,
59:National Organization for Women
1001:2006 in United States case law
726:
710:
684:
660:
636:
166:1215 (1994); remanded, 25
1:
853:Wisconsin Women's Law Journal
578:
563:List of class action lawsuits
882:, "On the Docket" column by
844:, Oregon Law Review, (2007).
7:
818:2006 Supreme Court Decision
556:
10:
1042:
973:Oyez (oral argument audio)
432:
200: (2003); remanded, 91
141:971 (1994); reversed,
898:Univ. of Miami Law Review
723: (7th Cir. 2001).
406:Consolidation and rulings
325:
320:
315:
307:
302:
236:
231:
225:
220:
107:Complaint dismissed, 765
103:
98:
66:
49:
45:Decided February 28, 2006
42:
28:
23:
651:765 F. Supp. 937
606:Travel Act, 18 USC §1952
544:With the case styled as
483:Meanwhile, in 1994, the
472:RICO complaint and trial
43:Argued November 30, 2005
790:2006 Supreme Court case
625:, 29:3:368-379 (2007).
593:Hobbs Act, 18 USC §1951
400:Pro-Life Action League
867:Notre Dame Law Review
507:nationwide injunction
439:Sherman Antitrust Act
118:1991); affirmed, 968
85:126 S. Ct. 1264; 164
837:, 14:213-243 (2011).
757:Litigants' summaries
721:267 F.3d 687
675:968 F.2d 612
531:Supreme Court review
445:Antitrust litigation
538:national injunction
423:national injunction
283:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1011:Hobbs Act case law
872:Green, Stuart P.,
840:Johnson, Dane E.,
782:2005-09-14 at the
769:2012-02-04 at the
373:Parties and issues
247:Associate Justices
922:Works related to
338:
337:
1033:
977:
971:
968:
962:
959:
953:
950:
944:
921:
907:, 29:281 (2002).
900:, 56:467 (2002).
869:, 75:691 (1999).
862:, 26:953 (2003).
750:
730:
724:
714:
708:
688:
682:
672:
664:
658:
648:
640:
634:
623:Law & Policy
615:
609:
602:
596:
589:
414:Operation Rescue
392:Joseph Scheidler
232:Court membership
216:1151 (2005).
55:Joseph Scheidler
33:
32:
21:
20:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1030:
981:
980:
975:
969:
966:
960:
957:
951:
948:
942:
914:
893:
855:, 21:73 (2006).
826:
824:Further reading
792:
784:Wayback Machine
771:Wayback Machine
759:
754:
753:
731:
727:
715:
711:
689:
685:
666:
665:
661:
642:
641:
637:
616:
612:
603:
599:
590:
586:
581:
559:
533:
517:First Amendment
474:
447:
435:
408:
375:
355:organized crime
285:
275:Clarence Thomas
273:
263:Anthony Kennedy
261:
251:John P. Stevens
94:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1039:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1008:
1003:
998:
993:
979:
978:
927:
913:
912:External links
910:
909:
908:
901:
892:
889:
888:
887:
877:
870:
863:
856:
847:Nero, Autumn,
845:
838:
829:Elman, Emily,
825:
822:
821:
820:
815:
807:
799:
791:
788:
787:
786:
773:
758:
755:
752:
751:
725:
709:
683:
659:
635:
610:
597:
583:
582:
580:
577:
576:
575:
570:
565:
558:
555:
532:
529:
513:
512:
473:
470:
453:dismissed the
446:
443:
434:
431:
407:
404:
374:
371:
336:
335:
323:
322:
318:
317:
313:
312:
309:
305:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
287:Stephen Breyer
259:Antonin Scalia
248:
245:
240:
234:
233:
229:
228:
223:
222:
218:
217:
105:
101:
100:
96:
95:
84:
68:
64:
63:
61:, Inc., et al.
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1038:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
988:
986:
974:
965:
956:
947:
940:
936:
932:
928:
926:at Wikisource
925:
920:
916:
915:
906:
902:
899:
895:
894:
885:
881:
878:
875:
871:
868:
864:
861:
857:
854:
850:
846:
843:
839:
836:
832:
828:
827:
819:
816:
814:
813:
808:
806:
805:
800:
797:
794:
793:
785:
781:
778:
774:
772:
768:
765:
761:
760:
748:
745:
741:
737:
736:
729:
722:
718:
713:
706:
703:
699:
695:
694:
687:
680:
676:
671:
670:
663:
656:
652:
647:
646:
639:
632:
628:
624:
620:
614:
607:
601:
594:
588:
584:
574:
571:
569:
566:
564:
561:
560:
554:
551:
547:
542:
539:
528:
524:
522:
518:
511:
508:
502:
501:
500:
499:
495:
493:
492:Randall Terry
488:
486:
481:
479:
478:Randall Terry
469:
466:
463:
461:
456:
452:
442:
440:
430:
427:
424:
420:
416:
415:
403:
401:
397:
396:anti-abortion
393:
388:
384:
380:
370:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
333:
329:
324:
319:
314:
310:
306:
301:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
249:
246:
244:
241:
239:Chief Justice
238:
237:
235:
230:
224:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
192:
188:
187:
182:
178:
174:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
150:
146:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
121:
117:
113:
110:
106:
102:
97:
92:
88:
82:
81:
76:
73:
69:
65:
62:
60:
56:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
930:
904:
897:
884:Laura Mcgann
866:
859:
852:
834:
811:
803:
777:Case summary
775:Defendants'
762:Plaintiffs'
749: (2003).
733:
728:
716:
712:
691:
686:
667:
662:
643:
638:
622:
621:(abstract),
613:
600:
587:
550:Samuel Alito
545:
543:
534:
525:
514:
503:
496:
489:
482:
475:
467:
464:
448:
436:
428:
411:
409:
383:class-action
376:
341:
340:
339:
321:Laws applied
303:Case opinion
295:Samuel Alito
290:
278:
271:David Souter
266:
254:
243:John Roberts
184:
142:
99:Case history
78:
57:, et al. v.
53:
15:
707: (1994)
681: 1992).
657: 1991).
521:free speech
361:: an anti-
985:Categories
798:, FindLaw.
579:References
394:and other
367:Travel Act
202:Fed. Appx.
91:U.S. LEXIS
876:, (2004).
655:N.D. Ill.
519:right to
510:patients.
455:antitrust
387:abortions
363:extortion
359:Hobbs Act
332:Hobbs Act
227:remanded.
133:granted,
116:N.D. Ill.
89:10; 2006
87:L. Ed. 2d
67:Citations
929:Text of
833:, Note,
780:Archived
767:Archived
764:Timeline
679:7th Cir.
557:See also
330:§ 1951 (
308:Majority
127:7th Cir.
109:F. Supp.
955:Findlaw
946:Cornell
433:History
221:Holding
976:
970:
967:
964:Justia
961:
958:
952:
949:
943:
738:,
696:,
677: (
673:,
653: (
649:,
357:, the
328:U.S.C.
293:
291:·
289:
281:
279:·
277:
269:
267:·
265:
257:
255:·
253:
189:,
147:,
937:
742:
700:
351:mafia
212:
193:
179:
162:
151:
137:
131:cert.
104:Prior
939:U.S.
744:U.S.
732:See
702:U.S.
690:See
604:The
591:The
449:The
377:The
353:and
214:U.S.
195:U.S.
181:U.S.
168:F.3d
164:U.S.
153:U.S.
139:U.S.
120:F.2d
80:more
72:U.S.
70:547
935:547
747:393
740:537
705:249
698:510
627:doi
326:18
210:545
206:807
198:393
191:537
177:535
173:687
160:510
156:249
149:510
135:508
123:612
112:937
987::
933:,
851:,
719:,
633:.
629::
608:.
595:.
334:)
125:(
114:(
83:)
77:(
75:9
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.