|
NOW v. Scheidler is a civil class-action lawsuit filed in the federal courts of the United States in 1986 by the National Organization of Women (NOW), representing the "class" of women seeking abortions, and various abortion clinics, representing the class of abortion providers, against Joseph Scheidler and other anti-abortion protestors and organizations which were members of the Pro-Life Action Network. It was eventually consolidated with National Organization of Women et. al v. Operation Rescue. After the case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on three separate occasions, in 2006 the court issued a unanimous verdict in favor of Scheidler and PLAL. In law, a class action is an equitable procedural device used in litigation for determining the rights of and remedies, if any, for large numbers of people whose cases involve common questions of law and fact. ...
National Organization for Women (NOW) is an American feminist group founded on June 30, 1966 in Washington, D.C. by women attending the Third National Conference of the Commission on the Status of Women. ...
Joseph Scheidler Joseph Scheidler is a noted anti-abortion activist, National Director of the Pro-Life Action League, former Benedictine monk, and named defendant in the NOW v. ...
Operation Rescue is a Christian Pro-Life organization, founded in the United States by Randall Terry in 1986. ...
The Supreme Court of the United States is the supreme court in the United States. ...
2006 (MMVI) is a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ...
The lawsuits sought monetary damages and injuctions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Hobbs Act (18 USC §1951, an anti-extortion law prohibiting interference with commerce by violence or threat of violence), and the Travel Act (18 USC §1952, prohibiting interstate travel in support of racketeering). RICO was originally drafted to combat the mafia and organized crime. The plaintiffs alleged that PLAN and Operation Rescue are racketeering organizations. RICO or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a United States law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. ...
Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to this person, reputation, or property. ...
The Mafia, also referred to in Italian as Cosa Nostra (lit. ...
Organized crime is crime carried out systematically by formal criminal organizations. ...
The courts had ruled in a 2003 decision that non-economic violence does not violate the RICO Act, but other federal charges, including associated monetary damages and a national injuction against interference with abortion clinic operations, remained unsettled until the final decision in 2006. 2003 (MMIII) was a common year starting on Wednesday of the Gregorian calendar. ...
History
The suit against Scheidler and PLAN members was filed by NOW and supporting clinics in 1986, under the Sherman Antitrust Act 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. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, was the first United States federal government action to limit monopolies held by trust companies. ...
The northern Illinois district court dismissed the anti-trust claims on the grounds that the protest groups were not in economic competition with the abortion clinics, and the RICO claims on the grounds that no "economic motive" was alleged. The dismissals were upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, but this conflicted with other RICO cases from other circuits. In 1994, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, asserting that no economic motive was necessary to violate the RICO laws. At this point, the defendants included John Patrick Ryan, Randall Terry, 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. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States district courts: Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of Illinois Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin The court is based at the Dirksen...
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Randall Terry Randall Terry (born 1959) is an American political and conservative religious activist and musician. ...
The case was remanded back to district court.
Meanwhile, in 1994, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act went into effect, prohibiting the use of force or intimidation to block access to reproductive health care facilities. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE or the Access Act), 18 USC §248, prohibits the use of intimidation or physical force to prevent or discourage either access to a reproductive health care facility (which most notably includes abortion clinics) or from exercising their freedom to worship at...
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, Randall Terry, 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 injuction. Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Randall Terry Randall Terry (born 1959) is an American political and conservative religious activist and musician. ...
Also 1998, as the Supreme Court summarizes: [1]
- 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. 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 nationwide injunction 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 patients.
(The injuction was issued in 1999; "petitioners" refers to the original defendents, who were the parties making the appeal.) The case was appealed to the Seventh Circuit again, on several grounds, including the First Amendment right to free speech. The circuit court affirmed the lower court's decision. The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. ...
Freedom of speech is the right to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related right to hear what others have stated. ...
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 victims. (Though they did, the court said, 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 injuction was thus not supported by the RICO charges. It left open the question of whether the law generally entitled private parties to injuctive relief (as opposed to after-the-fact monetary damages) in RICO cases.
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 national injuction 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 Hobbs Act prohibits non-extortive violence, and to decide the still-open question of whether the law generally entitled private parties to injuctive relief in RICO cases.
On February 28, 2006, the Supreme Court handed down an unanimous 8-0 verdict in favor of Scheidler and PLAL, with Justice Alito not voting because he was not yet on the Court when the arguments were presented. The Court held that the Hobbs Act did not cover violence unrelated to robbery or extortion. It also noted that Congress' 1994 passage of FACE indicated that it did not view RICO as pertaining to this area. Look up February in Wiktionary, the free dictionary February is the second month of the year in the Gregorian Calendar. ...
2006 (MMVI) is a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ...
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. ...
References - Scheidler, Joseph, et al. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al. / Operation Rescue v. NOW, "On the Docket" column by Laura Mcgann, Medill News Service. 1 September 2005.
- NOW v. Scheidler case summary
- Timeline from NOW
- 1994 Supreme Court decision on FindLaw
- 2003 Supreme Court decision on FindLaw and related documents
- 2004 Seventh Circuit decision
2005 Supreme Court case |
Feeds |
Contact