Supreme Court: Federal Racketeering Law Doesn't Apply to Pro-Life Activists

By Thomas J. Marzen, J.D.

In an 8-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) did not apply to the conduct of pro-life activists who had illegally interfered with abortion clinic practices. In Scheidler v. NOW, the Court held that the activists' conduct did not amount to a form of "extortion" necessary to RICO's application. Only Justice John Stevens dissented, arguing for an expansive definition of extortion.

RICO is a federal law designed to provide the federal government with a legal tool to combat organized crime by allowing broad injunctions against and treble civil damages for mob activities.

The High Court's February 26 decision involved a class action suit by the National Organization of Women (NOW) and two abortion clinics against Joseph Scheidler, Andrew Scholberg, and Timothy Murphy of the Pro-Live Action League, as well as against the Pro-Life Action League itself and Operation Rescue. In 1998 a jury found the activists had interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived women seeking abortion and the abortion clinics and their employees of their "property rights" by "extorting" from them their right to seek abortion, conduct their businesses, and do their jobs.

Under the authority of RICO, the jury then awarded almost $260,000 in damages against the defendants for their past conduct. The court also issued a permanent nationwide injunction against them from obstructing, trespassing, damaging, or using violence or threats against the abortion clinics, their employees, or their patients. Had the Supreme Court held against them, the defendants might also have been liable for well over a million dollars in attorneys' fees.

On appeal, the activists argued that none of their conduct amounted to "extortion" - - one of the "predicate acts" that must be proved before RICO might properly be invoked.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago had upheld the lower court's broad interpretation of extortion to allow use of RICO against the activists. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently agreed to hear the case.

Writing for the eight-member majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that the activists did not commit extortion within the meaning of the law because they did not "obtain" property from women seeking abortion, the abortion clinics, or clinic employees. They had not violated the Hobbs Act, which was the relevant federal statute said to trigger use of RICO against the activists, Rehnquist wrote.

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear, or under color of official right." The Court held that simply depriving women of abortion or clinics of business was insufficient to constitute "extortion" in the absence of proof that something of tangible value was "obtained" as a result.

RICO might also have applied if the activists had committed extortion under the various state-law extortion statutes. However, the Court likewise held that the activists hadn't because the Model Penal Code and the majority of state laws also require something of "tangible value" to be obtained as the result of coercive conduct to deprive owners of property in order to qualify as "extortion."

The Court then held that RICO could not be applied to the activists because it had not been proven that they either obtained or attempted to obtain any actual property as the result of their otherwise illegal conduct. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred in a separate opinion. Only Justice Stevens dissented, arguing for an expansive definition of extortion.