National Organization for Women v. Scheidler: Difference between revisions
various fixes |
intentional disambiguation linking mandated by WP:MOSDAB, WP:INTDABLINK, to remove false positives from lists of links needing repair |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{distinguish2|the 2003 and 2006 cases both named [[Scheidler v. National Organization for Women]]}} |
{{distinguish2|the 2003 and 2006 cases both named [[Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (disambiguation)]]}} |
||
{{Infobox SCOTUS case |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case |
||
|Litigants=National Organization for Women v. Scheidler |
|Litigants=National Organization for Women v. Scheidler |
Revision as of 17:43, 12 May 2012
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) |
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 Scheidler, while Miguel Estrada represented the United States as amicus curiae in favor of reversal.
The case was superseded by Scheidler v. National Organization for Women in 2003.