Inc. v. Scheidler National Organization for Women - Significance, Access V. Protest, A New Reading Of Rico, A Chilling Effect, Impact

petitioner abortion health decision

Petitioner

National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW); Delaware Women's Health Organization, Inc. (DWHO); Summit Women's Health Organization, Inc. (SWHO)

Respondent

Joseph Scheidler, Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), et al.

Petitioner's Claim

That respondents belonged to a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Fay Clayton

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Robert Blakey

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

24 January 1994

Decision

That attempts by the anti-abortion groups in question to hinder the business of the abortion clinics constituted racketeering, even though there was no economic purpose behind such activities; therefore the respondents could be charged under the RICO provisions.

Additional Topics

Inc. v. Scheidler National Organization for Women - Access V. Protest

The long, heated, and bitter battle over the abortion issue can be characterized in any number of ways, depending upon one's views. To feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), who helped to initiate the suit that would become National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, anti-abortion protests were simply an attempt, orchestrated by religious groups and other male- …

Inc. v. Scheidler National Organization for Women - A New Reading Of Rico

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling by a unanimous vote. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist first held that the clinics had standing to bring their claim. Citing Hishon v. King (1984), he noted that because their complaint had been dismissed at the pleading stage, it would not have to be sustained "if relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be pro…

Inc. v. Scheidler National Organization for Women - A Chilling Effect

Not only was it unanimous, the Court's opinion in Scheidler was remarkably short--only eight pages, including footnotes. This belied the complexity of the free-speech issues it raised, issues addressed briefly by Justice Souter in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Kennedy. Quoting from Lucas v. Alexander (1929), Souter noted that "a law `must be construed with an eye to possible constitutiona…

Inc. v. Scheidler National Organization for Women - Impact

Later in Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994), the Court ruled 6-3 that judges could establish "buffer zones" to keep protesters away from abortion clinics. Though not potentially as restrictive of free speech as Scheidler, the Madsen ruling still raised concerns, even on the Court that passed it. Chief Justice Rehnquist, again writing for the majority, warned judges not to "restrict more …

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.