Jump to content

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m link [pP]ro-life
Line 20: Line 20:
}}
}}
{{Italic title|force=true}}
{{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; [[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.
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.

Revision as of 10:04, 30 March 2022

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; 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.

See also

Further reading

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