High court weighs use of racketeering laws on protesters

At issue are sit-ins and demonstrations that block access to abortion clinics.

By Tanya Albert, amednews staff. May 20, 2002.

Nearly two decades into a legal fight over demonstration tactics used at abortion clinics, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up the question of whether protesters can be sued under laws designed to fight organized crime.

The National Organization for Women, which along with two clinics filed the suit going before the high court, says organized crime laws will help shield clinic physicians, nurses, employees and patients from violence by activists who go beyond speech protected by the First Amendment. The suit was filed against Operation Rescue, the Pro-Life Action League and anti-abortion demonstrators.

Case at a glance

But anti-abortion protesters say the threat of being sued under the organized crime laws would hamper political expression. And other groups have concerns about how the decision could curb their protests. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Southern Leadership Conference, actor Martin Sheen and other political protesters agreed in friend-of-the-court briefs.

"It's a matter that needs to be handled with care," said Walter Weber, senior litigation counsel for the Washington, D.C.-based American Center for Law, a nonprofit, public interest law firm arguing the case for anti-abortion protesters. "We pride ourselves on existing policies. If you get arrested, you spend a night in jail and get fined."

If protesters can be sued under organized crime laws, he said, the legal system would treat them as hard-core criminals subject to longer jail sentences and stiff financial penalties.

NOW takes issue with that depiction of the case. The lawsuit "has never challenged praying or picketing or protesting," said Fay Clayton, a Chicago attorney representing NOW. "Grabbing a woman by the hair and throwing her to the ground is not speech. Terrorism is not protected by the First Amendment."

Reviewing lower court decisions

In late April, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would look at two issues that address whether the trial court and appeals court properly applied federal laws:

Was the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals right to hold anti-abortion protester Joseph Scheidler, Operation Rescue and other activists accountable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act? The 7th Circuit decision to hold protesters accountable differs from a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
Does the Hobbs Act -- a federal anti-extortion statute -- criminalize the activities of protesters who participate in sit-ins or other demonstrations that obstruct a business or interfere with a customer's freedom to access services?

This marks the second time the Supreme Court has looked at the case. In 1993, the court said NOW could go forward with its lawsuit against Operation Rescue and the other defendants because they were not exempt from federal anti-racketeering laws. The justices sent the lawsuit back to the lower courts for trial.

During the seven-week jury trial, NOW introduced as evidence hundreds of alleged acts by anti-abortion protesters that the group said went beyond protected First Amendment speech.

For example, at a protest in Chico, Calif., demonstrators pressed four clinic staff members against a glass entrance for several hours and refused to let them go. The glass loosened or shattered and a clinic staff member was hurt, according to court documents. Others testified that protesters, in some cases, chained themselves to operating tables inside clinics or destroyed medical equipment.

NOW also introduced threatening letters, newsletters and other publications from anti-abortion organizations that explained how to block access to clinics and enter clinics to obstruct passageways, according to court documents.

The jury found the defendants guilty of violating RICO and the Hobbs Act. After more hearings, the trial judge issued a permanent, nationwide injunction stating that the protesters couldn't obstruct access to clinics, trespass on clinic property, destroy or damage clinic property, or use violence or threats of violence against clinic employees, volunteers or patients.

On appeal, the 7th Circuit in 2001 upheld the decision. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the laws were applied correctly.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Case at a glance

NOW Inc., et al. v. Joseph Scheidler, et al.; NOW Inc., et al. v. Operation Rescue (The cases have been combined.)

Venue: U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue: Whether a federal anti-racketeering law was properly used to punish anti-abortion protesters.
Potential impact: If the court rules that the law was used properly, well-organized protesters who obstruct access to a business, no matter what their cause, could be prosecuted and punished as organized crime.