National Organization for Women v. Scheidler: Difference between revisions
m →External links: HTTP to HTTPS for Findlaw, replaced: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ → https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ using AWB |
add internal link to further info about lawsuit |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
[[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. |
||
== Further reading== |
|||
[[Joseph Scheidler#NOW_v._Scheidler]] discusses the wider course of the litigation, before and after the 1994 Supreme Court decision. |
|||
== External links == |
== External links == |
||
Revision as of 20:22, 19 August 2018
| National Organization for Women v. Scheidler | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 8, 1993 Decided January 24, 1994 | |
| Full case name | National Organization for Women, Inc., et al. v. Joseph Scheidler, et al. |
| Citations | 510 U.S. 249 (more) 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L. Ed. 2d 99, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 1143 |
| Holding | |
| The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act applies to enterprises without economic motives, including anti-abortion protesters. Seventh Circuit reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Souter, 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; 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.
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.
Further reading
Joseph Scheidler#NOW_v._Scheidler discusses the wider course of the litigation, before and after the 1994 Supreme Court decision.
External links
- Text of National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |