National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
510 U.S. 249, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 1143, 127 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) does not require proof that either the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were motivated by an economic purpose.
Facts:
- National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW), along with two health care centers that perform abortions, Delaware Women’s Health Organization, Inc. (DWHO) and Summit Women’s Health Organization, Inc. (SWHO), were the targets of anti-abortion protest activities.
- A coalition of anti-abortion groups called the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), led by Joseph Scheidler, organized and engaged in protests with the stated goal of shutting down the clinics.
- The clinics alleged that Scheidler and PLAN conspired to use threatened or actual force, violence, and fear to disrupt their operations.
- These alleged acts were intended to induce clinic employees to quit their jobs, doctors to give up their right to practice medicine, and patients to give up their right to obtain medical services.
- The clinics asserted that these actions constituted a pattern of racketeering activity, specifically extortion under the Hobbs Act, which injured their business and property interests.
- Scheidler specifically threatened the DWHO clinic administrator with reprisals if she refused to quit her job.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners, including National Organization for Women, Inc., sued respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for alleged violations of RICO and other laws.
- The District Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the RICO claims, holding that the statute requires an economic motive, which petitioners had not alleged.
- Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal, agreeing that non-economic crimes committed for non-economic motives are outside the scope of RICO.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) require proof that the racketeering enterprise or its predicate acts were motivated by an economic purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) does not require that either the enterprise or its predicate acts have an economic motive. The plain language of the statute in 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and the definitions in § 1961 contain no such requirement. The Court reasoned that an enterprise can 'affect' interstate commerce by having a detrimental influence on it, even without a profit-seeking motive. Unlike subsections (a) and (b) of § 1962 where the enterprise is the victim or 'prize' of racketeering, the enterprise in subsection (c) is merely the 'vehicle' through which the unlawful activity is conducted. Citing its prior decision in United States v. Turkette, the Court noted that Congress could have easily narrowed the statute by adding the word 'economic' but chose not to, demonstrating an intent for the law to have a broad application. The rule of lenity is inapplicable because the statutory text is not ambiguous.
Concurring - Justice Souter
No. The concurrence agrees that RICO's unambiguous text does not include an economic-motive requirement. The principle of avoiding constitutional questions does not justify rewriting a clear statute. Furthermore, creating an economic-motive requirement would be a poor tool for protecting First Amendment rights, as it might wrongly shield violent ideological groups while leaving peaceful fundraising protesters exposed. The better approach is for defendants to raise First Amendment challenges to RICO's application in their specific cases, arguing that their conduct is protected speech or that the requested legal relief is unconstitutional. This decision does not prevent such First Amendment defenses from being raised in the future.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the application of civil RICO, confirming it can be used against ideologically motivated, non-commercial organizations. By rejecting an 'economic motive' requirement, the Court allowed a statute originally targeting organized crime to be wielded against protest groups and other non-profit enterprises. This ruling empowers businesses and individuals targeted by disruptive protests to sue for treble damages, provided they can establish a pattern of predicate criminal acts. Consequently, the case created a powerful legal tool for combating protest activities that cross into illegality, while also raising concerns about chilling legitimate First Amendment expression.
