Jump to content

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
added library of congress source for scan of U.S. Reports
add "use mdy dates" template
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{distinguish|text=the 2003 and 2006 cases both named [[Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (disambiguation)]]}}
{{distinguish|text=the 2003 and 2006 cases both named [[Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (disambiguation)]]}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=National Organization for Women v. Scheidler
|Litigants=National Organization for Women v. Scheidler
Line 10: Line 11:
|USPage=249
|USPage=249
|ParallelCitations=114 S. Ct. 798, 127 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed. 2d]] 99, 1994 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 1143
|ParallelCitations=114 S. Ct. 798, 127 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed. 2d]] 99, 1994 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 1143
|Prior=Complaint dismissed, 765 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/765/937/2351189/ 937] ([[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|N.D. Ill.]] 1991); affirmed, 968 [[F.2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/968/612/98510/ 612] ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|7th Cir.]] 1992); rehearing denied, 7th Cir., Aug. 4, 1992; [[certiorari|cert.]] granted, {{ussc|508|971|1994|el=no}}.
|Prior=
|Subsequent=Rehearing denied, {{ussc|510|1215|1994|el=no}}; remanded, 25 [[F.3d]] 1053 (7th Cir. 1994); complaint stricken in part, dismissed as to certain defendants; 897 F.Supp. 1047 (N.D. Ill. 1995); summary judgment granted in part to defendants, N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 1997; permanent injunction granted to plaintiffs, N.D. Ill. July 19, 1999; affirmed, 267 F.3d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/267/687/484095/ 687] (7th Cir. 2001); rehearing denied, 7th Cir., Oct. 29, 2001; cert. granted, {{ussc|535|1016|2002|el=no}}; reversed and remanded, {{ussc|name=Scheidler v. National Organization for Women|link=Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (2003)|volume=537|page=393|pin=|year=2003}}; remanded, 91 [[Federal Appendix|F. App'x]] 510 (7th Cir. 2004); rehearing denied, 396 F.3d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/396/807/592536/ 807] (7th Cir. 2005); cert. granted, {{ussc|545|1151|2005|el=no}}; reversed, {{ussc|name=Scheidler v. National Organization for Women|link=Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (2006)|volume=547|page=9|pin=|year=2006}}.
|Subsequent=
|Holding=The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act applies to enterprises without economic motives, including anti-abortion protesters. Seventh Circuit reversed.
|Holding=The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act applies to enterprises without economic motives, including anti-abortion protesters. Seventh Circuit reversed.
|SCOTUS=1993-1994
|Majority=Rehnquist
|Majority=Rehnquist
|JoinMajority=''unanimous''
|JoinMajority=''unanimous''
Line 20: Line 20:
|LawsApplied=18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968 [[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]] (RICO)
|LawsApplied=18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968 [[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]] (RICO)
}}
}}

{{Italic title|force=true}}
'''''[[National Organization for Women]] v. Scheidler''''', 510 U.S. 249 (1994), is a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court ruled that the [[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]] (RICO) could apply to enterprises without economic motives; pro-life protesters could thus be prosecuted under it. An organization without an economic motive can still affect interstate or foreign commerce and thus satisfy the Act's definition of a racketeering enterprise.
'''''National Organization for Women v. Scheidler''''', 510 U.S. 249 (1994), is a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court ruled that the [[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]] (RICO) could apply to enterprises without economic motives; [[anti-abortion]] protesters could thus be prosecuted under it. An organization without an economic motive can still affect interstate or foreign commerce and thus satisfy the Act's definition of a racketeering enterprise.


The Court did not issue judgment on whether or not the [[Pro-Life Action Network]], the organization in question, had committed actions that could be prosecuted under RICO.
The Court did not issue judgment on whether or not the [[Pro-Life Action Network]], the organization in question, had committed actions that could be prosecuted under RICO.


[[G. Robert Blakey]] argued on behalf of [[Joseph Scheidler]], while [[Miguel Estrada]] represented the United States as ''[[amicus curiae]]'' in favor of reversal.
[[G. Robert Blakey]] argued on behalf of [[Joseph Scheidler]], while [[Miguel Estrada]] represented the United States as ''[[amicus curiae]]'' in favor of reversal.

==See also==
*[[List of class-action lawsuits]]


== Further reading==
== Further reading==
[[Joseph Scheidler#NOW_v._Scheidler]] discusses the wider course of the litigation, before and after the 1994 Supreme Court decision.
[[Joseph Scheidler#NOW v. Scheidler]] discusses the wider course of the litigation, before and after the 1994 Supreme Court decision.


== External links ==
== External links ==
Line 44: Line 47:
[[Category:United States abortion case law]]
[[Category:United States abortion case law]]
[[Category:1994 in United States case law]]
[[Category:1994 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Class action lawsuits]]
[[Category:United States class action case law]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:National Organization for Women]]
[[Category:National Organization for Women]]


{{SCOTUS-stub}}
{{SCOTUS-stub}}

Latest revision as of 02:47, 13 September 2023

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler
Argued December 8, 1993
Decided January 24, 1994
Full case nameNational Organization for Women, Inc., et al. v. Joseph Scheidler, et al.
Citations510 U.S. 249 (more)
114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L. Ed. 2d 99, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 1143
Case history
PriorComplaint dismissed, 765 F. Supp. 937 (N.D. Ill. 1991); affirmed, 968 F.2d 612 (7th Cir. 1992); rehearing denied, 7th Cir., Aug. 4, 1992; cert. granted, 508 U.S. 971 (1994).
SubsequentRehearing denied, 510 U.S. 1215 (1994); remanded, 25 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 1994); complaint stricken in part, dismissed as to certain defendants; 897 F.Supp. 1047 (N.D. Ill. 1995); summary judgment granted in part to defendants, N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 1997; permanent injunction granted to plaintiffs, N.D. Ill. July 19, 1999; affirmed, 267 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2001); rehearing denied, 7th Cir., Oct. 29, 2001; cert. granted, 535 U.S. 1016 (2002); reversed and remanded, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003); remanded, 91 F. App'x 510 (7th Cir. 2004); rehearing denied, 396 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 545 U.S. 1151 (2005); reversed, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 547 U.S. 9 (2006).
Holding
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act applies to enterprises without economic motives, including anti-abortion protesters. Seventh Circuit reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceSouter, joined by Kennedy
Laws applied
18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) could apply to enterprises without economic motives; anti-abortion protesters could thus be prosecuted under it. An organization without an economic motive can still affect interstate or foreign commerce and thus satisfy the Act's definition of a racketeering enterprise.

The Court did not issue judgment on whether or not the Pro-Life Action Network, the organization in question, had committed actions that could be prosecuted under RICO.

G. Robert Blakey argued on behalf of Joseph Scheidler, while Miguel Estrada represented the United States as amicus curiae in favor of reversal.

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]

Joseph Scheidler#NOW v. Scheidler discusses the wider course of the litigation, before and after the 1994 Supreme Court decision.

[edit]