Supreme Court reviews punishment of anti-abortion protesters

Justices grapple with corruption law's use

Abortion rights supporters chant and carry signs outside the Supreme Court before Wednesday's argument.

Story Tools

RESOURCES Court docket: Scheidler v. NOW/Operation Rescue v. NOW)  (FindLaw, PDF) FACT BOX The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute became law in 1970 with passage of the Organized Crime Control Act. RICO defines racketeering to include such things as acts or threats involving murder, arson or extortion, and prohibits anyone who profits from racketeering activity from participating in or funding any group that engages in interstate commerce. Conviction under the RICO law can carry a prison term up to 20 years and forfeiture of assets. RICO was designed to stop organized crime money from entering legitimate groups and businesses that deal in interstate commerce, and is considered broad enough to allow prosecution of any illegal activity relating to interstate or foreign commerce. Sources: U.S. Department of Justice; United States Code.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Anti-abortion protests have become commonplace at clinics across the country. Now the Supreme Court is being asked to clarify how to punish those who cross the line into disruptive, even violent civil disobedience.

At issue is whether it is unfair to use federal laws against racketeering and extortion to go after anti-abortion groups who use, according to the official court filing, "sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct public's access" to medical clinics.

Such anti-racketeering laws have normally been used by federal prosecutors to go after organized crime.

Supporters on both sides of the abortion issue protested peacefully on the steps of the Supreme Court building Wednesday.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) first filed a lawsuit on behalf of the clinics in 1986, and the Court eight years later ruled in its favor. Leaders of the anti-abortion movement, including Operation Rescue and the Pro-Life Action Network, filed a new legal claim the justices will now decide.

As far back as the mid 1980s, anti-abortion groups began offering "classes" on clinic protest strategies, ranging from picketing and handling out leaflets, to activists chaining themselves to clinic doors.

Some of the demonstrations turned into violent confrontations, including threats and attacks on patients and medical workers. In some cases, clinics were damaged.

While many of the protest tactics are protected free speech, NOW claimed the confrontations were planned and organized, and represented "a pattern of extortion." The group cited the Hobbs Act, a federal law that made it a crime to obstruct or affect interstate commerce "by robbery or extortion" when "induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence and fear."

Anti-abortion groups objected, arguing an economic motive must be present in racketeering cases. The groups claim they did not profit financially from their protests.

In court arguments, attorney Roy Englert, who represents anti-abortion rights groups, said applying anti-racketeering and anti-extortion laws to his clients is "an awfully broad use of the language."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor challenged him, saying, "We're not talking about conduct that is lawful."

Countered Englert: "But we're not talking about extortion."

To paint a picture where we're talking about just pure speech is not the case. -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Said O'Connor: "To paint a picture where we're talking about pure speech is not entirely accurate."

NOW's attorney, Fay Clayton, got into a spirited debate with Justice Antonin Scalia and other justices over whether the actions of the anti-abortion groups amount to "obtaining of property," illegal under anti-extortion laws. Clayton said protests against clinics represent a loss of control over their business.

Scalia observed that under such reasoning, any kind of protest could be so interpreted, and "then everything becomes an obtaining of property."

The justices are now being asked to consider whether the Hobbs Act applies to political or ideological protests, and whether private groups like abortion clinics can sue under these anti-racketeering laws.

A decision is expected sometime next spring.

The cases are Scheidler v. NOW (No. 01-1118) and Operation Rescue v. NOW (No. 01-1119)

The cases are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (No. 01-1118), and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women (No. 01-1119).

CNN/Money: Ex-Tyco CEO found guilty • Killen ordered attack on civil rights worker, jury hears • Father convicted of murdering 9 of his children • Gov. Bush: Prosecutor taking up Schiavo inquiry

CNN/Money: Security alert issued for 40 million credit cards • Bin Laden deputy sends message • U.S. House votes to keep U.N. dues • Iran poll to go to run-off