First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
High court rules in favor of abortion protesters

By The Associated Press
02.28.06

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a setback today to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

The 8-0 decision in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the appellate court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence.

In today's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Instead, Breyer wrote, Congress chose to address violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which set parameters for such protests.

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with abortion demonstrators in arguing that lawsuits and injunctions based on the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

The legal battle began in 1986, when the National Organization for Women filed a class-action suit challenging tactics used by the Pro-Life Action Network to block women from entering abortion clinics.

NOW's legal strategy was novel at the time, relying on civil provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was used predominantly in criminal cases against organized crime. The lawsuit also relied on the Hobbs Act, a 55-year-old law banning extortion.

A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against the anti-abortion protesters after a Chicago jury found in 1998 that demonstrators had engaged in a pattern of racketeering by interfering with clinic operations, menacing doctors, assaulting patients and damaging clinic property.

The Supreme Court voided the injunction in 2003, ruling that the extortion law could not be used against the protesters because they had not illegally "obtained property" from women seeking to enter clinics to receive abortions.

Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the decision.


Update
Echoing high court ruling, federal judge backs abortion protesters
U.S. District Judge David Coar reiterates what justices said in 2006: Federal extortion, racketeering laws can't be used against demonstrators. 05.09.07

Previous
High court again considers limits on abortion protests
Anti-abortion groups argue before justices that they should be allowed to demonstrate without fear of lawsuits, large penalty judgments. 12.01.05

Related

High court to hear abortion-clinic protest case – for 3rd time

By Tony Mauro Action comes two years after many thought justices had put an end to fight between anti-abortion activists, women's rights group. 06.29.05

6 First Amendment cases on fall docket
By Tony Mauro Topics involve campus military recruiting, hallucinogenic tea, public-employee speech, abortion protests. 09.26.05

TODAY’S QUESTION: limits of protest
When and where can I protest without fear of being arrested? 02.28.06

2005-06 Supreme Court case tracker

Abortion protests & buffer zones


News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print


Last system update: Monday, September 22, 2008 | 21:01:15
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

First Reports
Supreme Court
Experts
Columnists
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links