Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
Citation: 91 F. App'x 510Docket: Nos. 99-3076, 99-3336, 99-3891, 99-3892, 01-2050
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; February 25, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
This case, remanded from the U.S. Supreme Court, involves a class action filed in 1986 by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and abortion clinics against the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN) and associated defendants for alleged extortion under RICO. Following a lengthy procedural history, including a seven-week trial, the jury found the defendants committed multiple violations of federal and state extortion laws, awarding damages and resulting in a permanent injunction against certain actions by the defendants. The defendants appealed, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on two key issues: (1) whether private civil actions under RICO can secure injunctive relief, and (2) whether the Hobbs Act criminalizes the actions of political protesters obstructing access to businesses. The Supreme Court ultimately determined that the defendants did not commit extortion as defined by the Hobbs Act since they did not 'obtain' property from the plaintiffs, which undermined the RICO claims based on these predicate acts. The court reversed the injunction issued by the District Court due to the absence of an underlying RICO violation, without addressing the availability of private injunctive relief under 1964(c) of RICO. On remand, the parties provided Statements of Position, with plaintiffs arguing that the Supreme Court's prior ruling did not resolve whether four specific acts or threats of physical violence could support the injunction, as defendants did not seek certiorari on these acts. Defendants countered that the Hobbs Act does not recognize physical violence as a standalone offense outside of extortion and robbery, asserting that the Supreme Court's ruling on extortion precludes any independent findings regarding the four violent acts. The court noted that the Supreme Court's limited scope for certiorari does not imply it adjudicated the four acts, as they were not fully briefed or addressed in the Court's opinion. Therefore, the court refused to assume that the Supreme Court found these acts insufficient to support the injunction. The case was remanded to the District Court to assess the sufficiency of the four acts or threats of physical violence for supporting the nationwide injunction. The District Court may need to interpret the Hobbs Act to determine if the phrase regarding physical violence constitutes an independent violation or relates to robbery or extortion. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the Hobbs Act may be irrelevant if the four acts are insufficient alone for the injunction. Ultimately, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision and the current order.