Supreme Court rules for abortion protesters

[DEAD ZONE]

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79640,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for people who regularly block clinic doors.

The court's 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that when protesters do not "obtain" property, they cannot be punished for civil disobedience with the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, an anti-racketeering law.

The court's ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years.

Rehnquist said that their political activity did not qualify as extortion.

That outcome had been sought by activists like actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.

[Phreakmeister]

An old article about this case:

Supreme Court reviews punishing of abortion foes

By The Associated Press
12.04.02

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is considering whether a federal racketeering law — intended to combat corruption — can be used to punish anti-abortion protesters.

The justices will revisit a case they first dealt with nine years ago when they ruled that anti-abortion groups and demonstrators could be sued in a private lawsuit under the 32-year-old Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO.

The case being argued today raises free-speech questions about violent or threatening political and social protests. While it does not involve the constitutionality of abortion, emotion from abortion rights supporters and foes has spilled into court filings.

The Supreme Court is hearing combined appeals from Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years.

The groups were sued by the National Organization for Women and abortion clinics in Milwaukee and Wilmington, Del., over what they described as violent tactics. The anti-abortion groups also were accused of extortion under another law, the Hobbs Act.

Lower courts found that the protesters illegally blocked clinic entrances, menaced doctors, patients and clinic staff and destroyed equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit or stop abortions at several clinics. They were ordered to pay $257,780 in damages.

Scheidler said if the Supreme Court overturns a decision against the protesters, it will be a victory for the anti-abortion movement and will ensure that groups of all types can demonstrate without risk of RICO prosecution.

"One of the most beautiful things about this country is we can protest our grievances. That is a trademark of America," Scheidler said.

Dozens of organizations and individuals have chosen sides. Actor Martin Sheen, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and four states are among supporters of the protesters. On the other side are nine states, several prosecutor groups, abortion-clinic bombing victim Emily Lyons, and others.

"Those who plant bombs or use clubs, fists, violent blockades, or nefarious means to express their dissent ... are criminals who should be punished as criminals, however sincere their beliefs," the Court was told in a filing on behalf of Lyons, a clinic nurse injured in Birmingham, Ala., in 1998.

Justices must differentiate between protected political activity and that which is illegal. The ruling is expected before next summer.

The cases are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 01-1118, and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, 01-1119.


PS. Shouldn't this thread be in "International Laws & Law News"?

[DEAD ZONE]

no.Its an american law and america is still a country.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
no.Its an american law and america is still a country.

True. No denying to it. But maybe you have forgotten that "International Laws & Law News" is a combination of two: "International Laws", about supranational legislation, and "Law News" about legal developments. Since this is law news, it belongs in the section about law news, which is "International Laws and Law News"

[DEAD ZONE]

Its a counties law also.Feel free to paste it there if you like