Court rules for anti-abortion protesters

chequita guevara · February 26, 2003, 16:16

Quote:

Court rules for anti-abortion protesters

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Gina Holland

Feb. 26, 2003 | Washington -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that federal racketeering and extortion laws were improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, lifting a nationwide injunction that barred people from interfering with clinic business.

The court's 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at abortion clinics.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that when protesters do not "obtain" property, they cannot be punished under federal extortion laws.

The court's ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and were barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years. The ruling ends that injunction.

Rehnquist said their protest activity did not qualify as extortion.

That outcome had been sought by activists like actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.

The demonstrators had been sued in 1986 by abortion clinics in Delaware and Wisconsin and the National Organization for Women, which contended that racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from violent protests that drive away clients.

They accused the groups of blocking clinic entrances, menacing doctors, patients and clinic staff, and destroying equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit abortions. The demonstrators were ordered to pay about $258,000 in damages.

Rehnquist said there is no dispute that abortion protesters interfered with clinic operations and in some cases committed crimes.

"But even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of 'shutting down' a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion," he wrote.

The punishments were meted out under provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, and the Hobbs Act, a 1946 law aimed at crushing organized crime. The Hobbs Act makes it a crime to take property from another with force.

Justice John Paul Stevens filed the only dissent. He said the court was limiting the scope of the Hobbs Act and limiting protection of property owners in its "murky opinion."

The Supreme Court has previously said that the Hobbs Act should be read broadly, he said.

"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," Stevens wrote.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote separately to say that the court was "rightly reluctant" to extend the reach of the RICO law, which allows prosecutors and private groups to seek hefty penalties.

The issue dates back to the 1980s when large groups of anti-abortion demonstrators used aggressive tactics to disrupt clinics. In 1998, a jury in Illinois found demonstrators guilty of dozens of violations, including four acts involving physical violence or threats of violence.

The court did not address a related issue in the case over whether the racketeering law gives individuals the right to ask a federal judge to stop a disputed activity. The law is most often used by federal prosecutors to go after organized crime figures, alleged conspirators and other criminals.

The cases are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 01-1118, and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, 01-1119.

I may disagree with what they say and how they say it, but I absolutely support their right to both (as long as it's peacefully). Furthermore, the original cases which NOW had pursued were a danger to the right of protest. Good job SCOTUS!

'

edit: added caveat.

Shi Huangdi · February 26, 2003, 16:23

See, SCOTUS doesn't always have to rule for the government. Hopefully we will get another positive ruling on the PATRIOT act.

Ramo · February 26, 2003, 16:48

Good to hear that.

Imran Siddiqui · February 26, 2003, 16:58

I just wonder what the Hell Justice Stevens was thinking?!

Ben Kenobi · February 26, 2003, 17:34

w00t!

Thanks che. I have the same reservation. No restrictions should be made on peaceful protest.

chequita guevara · February 26, 2003, 17:39

NOW wouldn't listen to the Left on this when they persued it. They didn't care that the ruling would hurt labor's ability to win good contracts or to protest inhumane working conditions in by boycotting sweatshop products. The previous ruling really was a disaster. I'm very happy SCOTUS overturned this, even if I find Operation Rescue to be a repulsive organization.

Bosh · February 26, 2003, 17:40

yay!
its a horrible twisting of the law to be able to sue protestors into bankruptcy like what was tried...

PLATO · February 26, 2003, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

See, SCOTUS doesn't always have to rule for the government. Hopefully we will get another positive ruling on the PATRIOT act.

I agree. We are all now free to protest the shrinking of the civil liberties we have.

Write your Congressman about the Patriot Act while you still can. SCOTUS has shown a tendancy to support such things in time in time of war.

Drogue · February 26, 2003, 18:30

I don't get it. If they damage property, and harrass the clinic to the extent that they have to close, is a ruling that they cannot harrass them anymore unreasonable? They damaged private property, it wasn't a peaceful protest.

Dr Strangelove · February 26, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I don't get it. If they damage property, and harrass the clinic to the extent that they have to close, is a ruling that they cannot harrass them anymore unreasonable? They damaged private property, it wasn't a peaceful protest.

If protestors do those things they can be tried for breaking the appropriate laws. I imagine that a clinic owner could sue the individuals who damaged the property, and might even be able to sue the organization that sponsered the protest if they can prove that the organization incited the violence. I don't think that this ruling overturns cases like the Klan group which was held liable for inciting an assaults on black people.

Ben Kenobi · February 26, 2003, 18:40

Drogue:
The key is in the word 'obtain' with regards to property.

The prolife protesters are not extorting property from the clinics, therefore, using RICO is inappropriate.

Charging protesters for damaging property should still be available, just not through RICO.

As for 'harrassing' a clinic, look at what we have here in BC. We have 'bubble zones' where people are arrested for praying outside the clinics.

If one is allowed to picket a business in a boycott, one should also be allowed to peacefully picket a clinic.

chequita guevara · February 26, 2003, 18:43

What this ruling says is that you can't be held monetarily liable for extortion if you aren't profiting off the so-called "extortion." In other words, Operation Rescue wasn't trying to make money by shutting down the clinics. They were simply shutting them down. RICO shouldn't apply here is what the Court is saying.

Now, can I launch a RICO suit against Jeb Bush and Kathlene Harris for illegally removing 91,000 eligible voters from the rolls? After all, the profited by it, and it was an illegal conspiracy.

Drogue · February 26, 2003, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
If one is allowed to picket a business in a boycott, one should also be allowed to peacefully picket a clinic.

But if you have already damaged property of that clinic, and have been fined for it, then is it unreasonable for you not to be allowed to picket it again? If someone harasses a person, it is reasonable, IMHO, for them to have a restraining order out on them. If they damage a clinic, do they still have the right to continue to go and harass the clinic? They have the right to peacefully picket, but if they've shown that they cannot be peaceful, why should that still be allowed?

If that doesn't work, can the owner of the clinic claim harassment of him/herself, and take out a restraining order on that. That the protestors aren't allowed close to that person, and therefore, not close to their place of work (the clinic)?

Felch · February 26, 2003, 20:30

The problem here is that a law was being twisted to prosecute people for something they weren't guilty of. If they were harassing the workers, then they should have been charged with that. RICO is an organized crime statute, meant for things like extortion and racketeering, not for picketing a clinic.

chequita guevara · February 26, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue

But if you have already damaged property of that clinic, and have been fined for it, then is it unreasonable for you not to be allowed to picket it again? If someone harasses a person, it is reasonable, IMHO, for them to have a restraining order out on them. If they damage a clinic, do they still have the right to continue to go and harass the clinic? They have the right to peacefully picket, but if they've shown that they cannot be peaceful, why should that still be allowed?

That's not what this ruling has to do with. This ruling says that a specific law, the RICO Act, cannot be in the manner is which it was used against Operation Rescue. All other laws still apply.

Berzerker · February 26, 2003, 21:17

Good ruling, RICO, like so much of what government does, was expanded to include all sorts of activities beyond the original scope - the Mafia. Of course, if I had my way, RICO would have been ruled unconstitutional.

Sava · February 26, 2003, 21:41

good ruling if they were protesting peacefully... but there are some pro-life wackos that post the names and addresses of women who get abortions and doctors so that people can harass and or commit violence. A clear distinction should be made between the peaceful protestors. Even though they are wrong and misguided, they still have the right to be morons in this country.

Imran Siddiqui · February 26, 2003, 22:34

I'm still waiting for my answer on Justice Stevens

. Did he see 'Operation Rescue' and didn't realize this would apply to all protests?

Thrawn05 · February 26, 2003, 22:42

I'm sure groups like NOW are now working one twisting the patriot act to call pro-life groups terrorists.

MBD · February 26, 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm still waiting for my answer on Justice Stevens

. Did he see 'Operation Rescue' and didn't realize this would apply to all protests?

At one time Stevens' nickname was "One-Eyed Jack", and he's still living up to it. Or maybe he just hates unanimous decisions.

chequita guevara · February 27, 2003, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05
I'm sure groups like NOW are now working one twisting the patriot act to call pro-life groups terrorists.

That happened many years ago, seriously. Nor do I disagree, since these groups spawn quite a bit of domestic terrorism, from stalkings to assasinations to fire bombings to death threats.

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 11:17

Damn it! I wanted to use RICO to shut down Worker's World!

Stefu · February 27, 2003, 16:22

Quote:

At one time Stevens' nickname was "One-Eyed Jack",

I assume this comes from his habit of plundering through the Caribbean.

MRT144 · February 27, 2003, 16:26

good ruling by the supreme court!

Ben Kenobi · February 27, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

good ruling if they were protesting peacefully... but there are some pro-life wackos that post the names and addresses of women who get abortions and doctors so that people can harass and or commit violence.

Agreed Sava. I've confined my approval to peaceful prolife protesters. People who damage property are no longer protesting peacefully.

MBD · February 27, 2003, 17:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Stefu

I assume this comes from his habit of plundering through the Caribbean.

It comes from Stevens' habit of being the wildcard in many SC decisions. Some SC cases were described as being decided 5-3-1 or 6-2-1.

St Leo · February 27, 2003, 18:51

I'm sure groups like NOW are now working one twisting the patriot act to call pro-life groups terrorists.

Well, they are terrorists. Pro-lifers' only aim in these protests is to cause terror among doctors and patients. Ergo, they are terrorists.

OTOH, protests of the union kind aim to improve the working conditions of the protesters. Those protestors aren't terrorists.

Duh.

Imran Siddiqui · February 27, 2003, 19:11

That's a **** generalization, St leo.

I can easily say that protests by unions aim to cause terror among business leaders to get their aims done. And that pro-life groups aim to improve the rights of the unborn.

Neither are terrorists.

St Leo · February 27, 2003, 22:18

Pro-life groups have no jurisdiction over the rights of the unborn. If they want to demonstrate their lunacy, they should picket their city hall and not invade the private affairs of other people.

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Pro-lifers' only aim in these protests is to cause terror among doctors and patients.

Never been called a terrorist before. It's kind of amusing to see stupidity displayed so openly. I rarely see such things outside of Tribune's threads.