National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler

Background

A national abortion-rights group and two abortion clinics sued a coalition of antiabortion organizations and leaders, saying those groups conspired nationwide to shut down clinics. The clinics alleged the protesters used force, threats, and fear to drive away staff and patients, injuring the clinics’ business and property. The clinics relied on RICO and the Hobbs Act extortion theory.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether RICO requires that the enterprise or the illegal acts be motivated by an economic purpose. The Court held that nothing in RICO’s text requires an economic motive. It explained that subsection (c) treats an “enterprise” as any association that affects interstate commerce, not only profit-seeking organizations, and that other RICO provisions use “enterprise” differently. The Court found the statute unambiguous, rejected reliance on congressional findings or earlier Department of Justice guidelines to add an economic requirement, and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court did not decide whether the clinics proved the predicate crimes or a pattern.

Real world impact

As a result, civil RICO claims can be brought against organizations even if their goals are ideological rather than profit-driven, so long as plaintiffs prove the required predicate acts and pattern. The decision lets the clinics’ statutory claim move forward at the pleading stage, but it leaves open the ultimate factual questions. Courts should still consider First Amendment defenses and may limit relief where free-speech interests are implicated.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Souter, joined by Justice Kennedy, concurred to stress that the First Amendment does not require importing an economic-motive rule, and reminded courts that defendants may raise free-speech defenses in individual cases.