The Supreme Court overturned by a vote of 8-1 a successful lawsuit brought against anti-abortion protesters under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act.

The National Organization of Women successfully sued Joseph M. Scheidler using the civil lawsuit provisions of the RICO act. NOW argued in court that anti-abortion activists who protested at clinics were in essence not simply practicing civil disobedience, but in fact formed a criminal conspiracy aimed at extorting legitimate business enterprise.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing in the majority opinion, said of this novel legal theory,

There is no dispute in these cases that petitioners interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived respondents of their ability to exercise their property rights. Likewise, petitioners’ counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients’ conduct were criminal. 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 because petitioners did not “obtain” respondents’ property. Petitioners may have deprived or sought to deprive respondents of their alleged property right of exclusive control of their business assets, but they did not acquire any such property. Petitioners neither pursued nor received “something of value from” respondents that they could exercise, transfer, or sell.

This ruling will likely mean an end to any remaining efforts to use RICO against animal rights activists. The court is pretty clear that whatever else the activities of a group like Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty might be, it doesn’t make sense to describe them as extortion.

In a brief concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points to where opponents of animal rights extremism should look as a model — Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. This act provides additional criminal and civil penalties for individuals and groups who block access to clinics. In effect, the law says that organized efforts to deny women access to abortion clinics constitutes a crime of serious enough nature that it needs to be prosecuted as more than a simple trespassing or disturbing the peace.

The Supreme Court has turned away all challenges to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that have reached it, and thus it would serve well as model legislation designed to more effectively deal with organized criminal acts against animal enterprises.

Sources:

Scheidler vs. National Organization for Women.

High court overturns ruling in abortion case. Elliott Blackburn, The Daily Texan, February 27, 2003.

Extortion law ruled invalid in protest case. Joan Biskupic, USA Today, February 27, 2003.

Protection for protesters. John Leon, U.S. News & World Report, March 10, 2003.

The 9th District Court of Appeals recently overturned a civil jury award against the anti-abortion Nuremberg Files which had collected personal information about abortion providers and created “Wanted Posters” affixed with the names and pictures of abortion doctors. The Court ruled that unless they directly threatened or participated in a criminal conspiracy, the Nuremberg Files site was protected by the First Amendment. This would seem to put an end to civil |Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization| lawsuits against animal rights activists, but there may be an alternative — stalking laws might apply to such groups.

Ironically in the 9th District Court there is a trial going on right now based on this theory. The case involves anti-government activist Jim Bell. Bell was jailed for a few years for tax evasion and other crimes he plead guilty to as part of a plea bargain arrangement. Bell is most (in)famous for his “Assassination Politics” idea. This was a computerized system using strong encryption that would allow people to arrange for the assassination of public officials.

After he was released from jail, Bell began using publicly available sources to compile information about federal judges. He also apparently visited the home of at least one judge to case the house out. After an investigation, Bell was indicted for stalking. It is my understanding that the indictment specifically argues that Bell’s compilation of personal data about judges constituted stalking, even though it came from publicly available sources.

If this prosecution is successful — and survives any challenges — this could be a possible legal avenue for individuals and businesses who are being harassed by animal rights activists. Various Animal Liberation Front-style sites publish both information about how to go about committing terrorist acts as well as information about the addresses, phone numbers, and other personal information about researchers. Assuming the Bell prosecution is successful, these sites and their authors would seem to be even more vulnerable since almost none of the people targeted by animal rights activists even come close to being public figures (unlike federal judges).

The Associated Press reports that a three-judge panel in the 9th District Court has thrown out the controversial civil lawsuit against the Nuremberg Files web site.

The Nuremberg Files was a web site set up by anti-abortion activists. Among other things, the site listed names and other personal information about doctors who performed abortions. It also included posters that mimicked wanted posters but included pictures of abortion providers which it referred to as “baby butchers.”

Three doctors whose names appeared on lists maintained by the Nuremberg Files were murdered. Planned Parenthood sued the Nuremberg Files in court under provisions of the |Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization| statute claiming that the web site was essentially the focal point of a criminal conspiracy. That nobody involved with the web site had committed or even planned any acts of violence was irrelevant — the contents of the web site itself made the Nuremberg Files responsible, in part, for abortion-related violence.

A jury agreed with Planned Parenthood and the proprietors of the site were ordered to pay damages to Planned Parenthood and several abortion doctors.

The 9th District Court unanimously agreed that the jury was wrong — what the Nuremberg Files did was speech protected by the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote,

If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others, then their [works] could properly support the verdict. But if their [works] merely encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the First Amendment.

This will have a major impact on a number of pending suits against animal rights activists.

First, this is going to end up in the Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood has the deep pockets necessary to see this case through to the end. They will especially be encouraged to do so since the 9th Circuit Court’s decisions are often overturned by the Supreme Court. It has a reputation for rendering decisions that the Supreme Court later deems to be an excessively broad interpretation of the Constitution.

Second, if the verdict survives a Supreme Court challenge, the various RICO suits against animal rights activists are dead. If the 9th Circuit Court is correct, then an Animal Liberation Front site can list personal information about, say, federally-funded medical researchers, and cheer those who commit violent acts, but so long as they don’t directly threaten or engage in a conspiracy with those who commit violence, there is no legal recourse.

I suspect the Supreme Court will overturn the 9th District’s opinion, even if it ultimately sides with the Nuremberg Files, since the decision provides a gaping legal hole for people conspiring to commit murder.

Source:

Court: OK to Encourage Abortion Threat. David Kreats, Associated Press, March 28, 2001.

The Associated Press reports that a three-judge panel in the 9th District Court has thrown out the controversial civil lawsuit against the Nuremberg Files web site.

The Nuremberg Files was a web site set up by anti-abortion activists. Among other things, the site listed names and other personal information about doctors who performed abortions. It also included posters that mimicked wanted posters but included pictures of abortion providers which it referred to as “baby butchers.”

Three doctors whose names appeared on lists maintained by the Nuremberg Files were murdered. Planned Parenthood sued the Nuremberg Files in court under provisions of the |Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization| statute claiming that the web site was essentially the focal point of a criminal conspiracy. That nobody involved with the web site had committed or even planned any acts of violence was irrelevant — the contents of the web site itself made the Nuremberg Files responsible, in part, for abortion-related violence.

A jury agreed with Planned Parenthood and the proprietors of the site were ordered to pay damages to Planned Parenthood and several abortion doctors.

The 9th District Court unanimously agreed that the jury was wrong — what the Nuremberg Files did was speech protected by the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote,

If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others, then their [works] could properly support the verdict. But if their [works] merely encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the First Amendment.

This will have a major impact on a number of pending suits against animal rights activists.

First, this is going to end up in the Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood has the deep pockets necessary to see this case through to the end. They will especially be encouraged to do so since the 9th Circuit Court’s decisions are often overturned by the Supreme Court. It has a reputation for rendering decisions that the Supreme Court later deems to be an excessively broad interpretation of the Constitution.

Second, if the verdict survives a Supreme Court challenge, the various RICO suits against animal rights activists are dead. If the 9th Circuit Court is correct, then an Animal Liberation Front site can list personal information about, say, federally-funded medical researchers, and cheer those who commit violent acts, but so long as they don’t directly threaten or engage in a conspiracy with those who commit violence, there is no legal recourse.

I suspect the Supreme Court will overturn the 9th District’s opinion, even if it ultimately sides with the Nuremberg Files, since the decision provides a gaping legal hole for people conspiring to commit murder.

Source:

Court: OK to Encourage Abortion Threat. David Kreats, Associated Press, March 28, 2001.