ABORTION, PROTESTING, CERTIORARI, REMAND, EXTORTION, INJUNCTION,
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO), HOBBS ACT

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (04-1244); Operation
Rescue v. National Organization for Women (04-1352)
 
Oral argument date: Nov. 30, 2005

The National Organization of Women ("NOW") sued Scheidler and other
anti-abortion protestors, arguing that the protestors' conduct was in
violation of federal and state extortion laws, with liability created
by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The
protestors were found guilty of 117 extortion-based acts and four "acts
or threats of physical violence." Accordingly, the district court
granted a permanent injunction against the protestors under RICO. The
case went to the Supreme Court, which held that the protestors' actions
did not constitute extortion and ordered the Seventh Circuit to reverse
"all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a RICO
violation," and to vacate the injunction. However, the Seventh Circuit
interpreted "all of the predicate acts" to refer to only the 117
extortion-based acts, and not the four acts of physical violence,
because the Supreme Court never specifically reviewed the legality of
the four acts.

Now the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to determine, among other
questions, whether the Seventh Circuit ignored its order to dismiss
"all of the predicate acts" by preserving the four acts of violence.
The protestors argue that the Seventh Circuit's failure to dismiss "all
of the predicate acts" improperly ignores the Supreme Court's order and
that the federal law in question, the Hobbs Act, can only be violated
by acts of extortion, not mere acts of violence. NOW argues that an
"act or threat of physical violence" may be a violation of the Hobbs
Act, and that the Seventh Circuit properly confined the Supreme Court's
order to dismissing only the 117 extortion-based acts. This case is
especially interesting from a procedural standpoint, as it will address
how an appellate court should interpret an order of the Supreme Court
where that order may be broader than the Court's original scope of
certiorari. For the average person, however, the Court's interpretation
of the Hobbs Act will affect the extent to which organizations may
protest without violating federal laws, as well as potentially expand
the Federal Government's police power.