Michael McMonagle v. Northeast Women's Center, Inc
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from anti-abortion protesters who had been found liable under the federal racketeering law (RICO) even though neither their group nor its activities were aimed at making money.
Justice White dissented, noting that two other appeals courts had ruled the opposite way, and argued the conflict among the circuits over whether RICO requires a profit motive should have been resolved.
How it got here: The Third Circuit upheld RICO liability against the protesters; they asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling, and the Court denied review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A women's health clinic sued individuals who had protested at its facility, using the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to hold them liable for their coordinated activities. The protesters argued RICO should not apply because neither their group nor their conduct was aimed at making money, only at opposing the clinic's abortion services.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have stepped in to decide whether people can be held liable under the federal anti-racketeering law even when their group and its activities had no profit motive?
Why it matters
Because the Court left the split in place, whether protest groups and other non-profit organizations can be sued or prosecuted under RICO continued to depend on which federal appeals court had jurisdiction, creating inconsistent legal exposure for activists and organizations across the country until the issue was resolved.
What changes now
The denial of certiorari leaves the Third Circuit's ruling in place for this case, meaning the protesters remain liable under RICO despite the absence of a profit motive. Because the Court did not take up the question, the disagreement among federal appeals courts over whether RICO requires an economic motive remained unresolved nationwide, leaving the issue to be litigated case by case in other circuits.
What this does not decide
A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits — it does not mean the Supreme Court agreed with the Third Circuit's approach to RICO, only that it chose not to review the case at this time. The underlying legal question about whether RICO requires a profit motive remained unresolved.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Dissent (1). Justice White (author).
Dissent — Justice White
“The Third Circuit in this case upheld RICO liability despite the absence of any economic motivation on the part of the defendants.”White explains why he would have granted review of the RICO profit-motive question.
Justice White dissented from the denial of certiorari, arguing the Court should have resolved a circuit split over whether RICO liability requires that the enterprise or pattern of racketeering activity have a profit-making purpose. He pointed out that the Third Circuit's approach, upholding liability without any economic motive, conflicted with rulings from the Second and Eighth Circuits. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Justice White's dissent focused on whether RICO liability requires that the 'enterprise' (the group of people involved) or the 'pattern of racketeering activity' (the string of unlawful acts) have some profit-making purpose.
- He noted that the Second and Eighth Circuits had already ruled that RICO does not reach conduct lacking any financial or economic motive, treating a profit purpose as a required element.
- By contrast, the Third Circuit in this case upheld RICO liability against the protesters even though the government and the clinic did not show any economic motivation behind their conduct.
- Because the circuits disagreed on a basic element of RICO liability, Justice White concluded the conflict should be resolved by the Supreme Court rather than left unsettled, and he would have granted review to decide the question.