Jane Roe Mary Moe National Abortion Rights Action League of Pennsylvania Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women Reproductive Health and Counseling Center Women's Suburban Clinic Allentown Women's Center Northeast Women's Center Women's Medical Services Allen Kline, Dr. v. Operation Rescue Randall Terry Reverend James P. Lisante Pro Life Nonviolent Action Project of Bronx, N.Y. Thomas Herlihy Pro Life Nonviolent Action Project of Philadelphia Michael McMonagle Chester County Citizens Concerned About Life John J. O'Brien Council for the Sanctity of Human Life Joseph Foreman Advocates for Life Andrew Burnett American Life League Judie Brown Direct Action Committee Kathy Hoffer Craig Hoffer Life and Family Center Andrew Schulberg Pro Life Action League Joseph Scheidler Pro Life Direct Action League John Ryan Omaha Christian Action Council Denny Hartford Pro Life Nonviolent Action Project of Washington, D.C. John Cavanaugh O'Keefe John Smith(s) and Jane Smith(s)

Citations: 54 F.3d 133; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 8851Docket: 94-1123

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; April 18, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An action was initiated for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent blockades of abortion clinics, stemming from ongoing legal disputes lasting nearly seven years. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania previously denied the appellants' motion to hold Operation Rescue and associated defendants in contempt for violating a Revised Permanent Injunction issued in 1989. The appellants, including the National Abortion Rights Action League of Pennsylvania and several abortion clinics, appealed this decision. The Court found that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard regarding civil contempt and reversed the denial, remanding the case with instructions to grant the motion.

The original lawsuit, filed on June 29, 1988, involved eleven plaintiffs, including abortion providers and advocacy groups, responding to Operation Rescue's plans to obstruct clinics in Philadelphia through large demonstrations and blockades. Following a hearing, a temporary restraining order was issued on June 30, 1988, prohibiting the defendants from trespassing or blocking clinic entrances during a specified period.

In March 1989, the district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from trespassing, obstructing access, or harassing individuals at abortion facilities in Philadelphia and its metropolitan area. Following a motion by the plaintiffs, the court later revised this injunction to allow the U.S. Marshal to read it at protest sites. The current appeal stems from a civil contempt motion filed by plaintiffs against Operation Rescue and its associates for alleged violations of this Revised Permanent Injunction on July 9, 1993. 

During the summer of 1993, Operation Rescue National organized a campaign called "Cities of Refuge," which included protests in Philadelphia. Evidence presented at a hearing on December 1, 1993, indicated that the campaign was promoted through anti-abortion literature and involved activities termed "rescues," described by the defendants as "passive, non-violent direct action." 

On July 9, over 100 protestors gathered at the Crozer-Chester Medical Center, effectively blocking all clinic entrances for several hours. Testimony revealed that protest leaders Joseph Roach and Robert Lewis managed the crowd but did not physically block the doors. Despite being aware of the injunction, they did not disperse the protest after it was read aloud by a U.S. Marshal around midday.

An individual who participated in the Cities of Refuge events at the Valley Forge Hilton on July 14, 1993, testified that Lewis served as Master of Ceremonies, introducing Operation Rescue National leader Keith Tucci, who acknowledged local leaders, presumably Robert Lewis and Joseph Roach. The witness noted that Roach and Lewis wore red arm bands indicating their status as marshals and directed attendees regarding subsequent events. Following a hearing, the district court denied the plaintiffs' contempt motion, finding that Roach and Lewis had knowledge of an existing court order and were active participants in events from July 8 to July 18, 1993. However, the court determined that the plaintiffs did not prove that Roach or Lewis violated the Revised Permanent Injunction, citing insufficient evidence linking the arm bands to Operation Rescue. The district judge also incorrectly referenced a speech by Terry as occurring prior to the "Cities of Refuge" campaign, which influenced the conclusion that Terry's activities did not violate the injunction. The appellants then appealed this denial, designating Operation Rescue, Terry, Lewis, and Roach as appellees. The review of the contempt motion denial is based on whether the district court abused its discretion, with reversal warranted only for legal errors or clearly erroneous factual findings. The appellate court found that the district court erred by disregarding substantial documentary evidence and testimony indicating that Operation Rescue, along with Terry, Lewis, and Roach, conspired to violate the Revised Permanent Injunction by organizing the July 9th blockade. For civil contempt liability, plaintiffs must prove three elements: the existence of a valid court order, defendants' knowledge of the order, and their disobedience of the order. The district court's lack of specific findings on Operation Rescue's involvement and its focus on the arm bands were deemed erroneous, as they overlooked significant evidence linking Operation Rescue to the blockade.

Documentary evidence demonstrates the connection between Operation Rescue, Operation Rescue National, and the RHCC campaign through various promotional materials, including literature, fundraising letters, and organizing documents aimed at supporting the Cities of Refuge Campaign. These materials advocated for "non-violent direct action" in Philadelphia from July 8-17, 1993, and included a letter from Keith Tucci, the Executive Director of Operation Rescue National, soliciting funds for life-saving activities related to the campaign. Following the campaign, both organizations claimed credit for its success, and a publication titled "The Rescuer" explicitly linked the July 9th blockade of RHCC to the campaign.

The argument positing Operation Rescue National as a distinct entity from Operation Rescue is deemed disingenuous, as the evidence reveals overlapping membership and interchangeable use of names, indicating both organizations collaborated on the Cities of Refuge Campaign. Promotional literature from the Appellees frequently failed to differentiate between the two groups. Notably, Randall Terry solicited support for the campaign using his Operation Rescue title while referencing Operation Rescue National, and Tucci's fundraising letter mixed references to both organizations.

Testimony further connected Operation Rescue National to the July 9th blockade, with participants donning "Cities of Refuge" badges and "Rescue" armbands, and attendees at a rally displaying similar logos featured in promotional materials. The overwhelming evidence of Operation Rescue's involvement led to the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion by attributing its decision solely to the lack of clear and convincing evidence regarding the armbands.

In relation to Randall Terry, it was argued that the district court erred in finding he was not involved in the July 9th blockade, as the court incorrectly concluded that physical presence was necessary to violate the injunction. The trial court disregarded clear testimony regarding Terry's solicitation of support for the campaign and his speaking engagement at a related event, thus acting in concert with Operation Rescue for the blockade.

The district court determined that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Terry violated the court's order, concluding he was neither present nor active during the relevant events. Although Terry spoke at a hotel prior to the 'Cities of Refuge' campaign, this location was over twenty miles from the Reproductive Health and Counseling Center (RHCC), and his speech focused on pro-life political involvement, not actions violating the order.

However, case law indicates that instigators of contemptuous conduct can still be liable even if they do not physically engage in the prohibited actions. In previous rulings, it was established that encouragement of others to violate an injunction can suffice for a finding of contempt. 

Evidence revealed that Terry was involved in two key activities related to the blockade. First, he wrote a letter soliciting support for the Cities of Refuge campaign, indicating that "rescues" would occur as part of a pro-life initiative, thereby encouraging behavior that violated the Revised Permanent Injunction. His language suggested a direct link to the blockade activities. Second, Terry was a prominent speaker at a rally on the night of the blockade, which was heavily promoted as part of the campaign. His participation was intended to draw attendees to the events that facilitated the blockade.

The trial court's assertion that plaintiffs did not prove Terry's active involvement reflects a misunderstanding of the legal standards regarding contempt, particularly the erroneous belief that physical presence is required to establish liability. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision due to this clear legal error.

The district court declined to hold Roach and Lewis in contempt for allegedly violating the Revised Permanent Injunction, citing insufficient evidence from the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the red arm bands worn by Roach and Lewis were linked to Operation Rescue. However, it was established that Roach and Lewis acted in concert with Operation Rescue and Terry to breach the injunction. Case law supports that non-parties with knowledge of a court order can be held in contempt if they assist in its violation. The Revised Permanent Injunction explicitly prohibits non-parties with actual knowledge from collaborating with named parties to undermine compliance. The district court acknowledged that Roach and Lewis were aware of the injunction, a finding they did not contest. Evidence indicated that they participated in organizing the Cities of Refuge campaign and led the July 9th blockade of RHCC, where they wore red arm bands and took on leadership roles. Lewis served as Master of Ceremonies at a rally, where he was recognized for his local leadership. Roach received an award for his leadership at the same rally and admitted to inviting Terry to speak to attract attendees. The trial court incorrectly interpreted the "acting in concert" clause of the injunction by not holding Roach and Lewis in contempt based on clear evidence of their coordinated actions with Operation Rescue and Terry during the blockade.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiffs' motion to hold Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, Robert Lewis, and Joseph Roach in civil contempt of the Permanent Revised Injunction issued on July 17, 1989. Operation Rescue and Operation Rescue National are deemed interchangeable, supported by prior federal court findings indicating they are the same organization. Evidence includes a check to Operation Rescue being cashed by "ORN," presumably Operation Rescue National. 

Appellants argue a factual error occurred regarding the date of Terry's speaking appearance, which was incorrectly set before the Cities of Refuge campaign, while evidence suggests it was during the campaign. Although the appellees contend this error was harmless, a serious factual error can warrant reversal in contempt proceedings. However, the court finds sufficient legal and factual grounds for reversal without addressing this issue. The document also references previous cases holding related groups in contempt for violating injunctions against blocking access to abortion facilities, emphasizing that actual physical action is not required for a finding of contempt related to the Revised Permanent Injunction.