Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Protest Case

The following press release by the Thomas More Society explains the events and status of the lawsuit in greater detail.

CHICAGO, June 28 /Christian Wire Service/ -- This morning the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition filed last March by the Thomas More Society, Pro-Life Law Center, for Joseph Scheidler and other Chicago-based abortion protesters, agreeing for the 3rd time to review Scheidler v. NOW – the mega-sized, marathon class action lawsuit, that twice already has traced an erratic path of up's and down's, zigs and zags, through all levels of the federal judicial system over the space of the last two decades. Filed over 19 years ago by NOW and abortion clinics in June, 1986, as a federal antitrust case (charging "conspiracy in restraint of trade"), from its inception the case was aimed at anti-abortion activist, Joseph Scheidler, who had just published a protest manual, Closed: 99 Ways to Shut Down the Abortion Industry (1985). Also named defendants were Scheidler's Pro-Life Action League, and other activist leaders and groups. Later, the suit was amended to add new charges under the federal racketeering (RICO) and extortion laws, and new defendants including Randall Terry's "Operation Rescue." Operation Rescue remains a co-defendant and its counsel, ACLJ, filed another petition for review in April, 2005, which was also granted this morning.

Alan Untereiner of the Washington, D.C. law firm, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, and Untereiner LLP, was principal author of the successful petition for Scheidler, the League, and two other co-defendants (http://www.robbinsrussell.com/pdf/300.pdf). Three issues were presented for Supreme Court review, all of which will now be considered:

--1. Whether after the Supreme Court handed down its last decision on the merits of this case in February, 2003 (Scheidler II), the lower court – a 3-Judge panel of U.S. Court of Appeals at Chicago (7th Circuit) – disobeyed the high Court when it held that four "predicate acts" found by the jury after a 1998 trial were unaffected by Scheidler II, and ordered the trial court to decide if those four acts warranted keeping a RICO injunction in effect against defendants;

--2. Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly ruled, in conflict with decisions of the 6th and 9th Circuits, that the federal Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951(a), traditionally deemed to outlaw robbery or extortion in interstate commerce, could be read so expansively as to punish any acts or threats of physical violence against "persons or property" (i.e., including petty crimes such as vandalism) that "in any way or degree ... affect commerce," even if unconnected to robbery or extortion; and

--3. Whether injunctive relief is available in private lawsuits brought under RICO (as. apart from federal government civil suits) for treble damages, under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c).

Lyle Denniston of the Baltimore Sun, Dean of the Supreme Court press corps, described this case in a post on www.scotusblog.com on June 8, 2005, as "[t]he nation's longest-running fight over abortion – now in its 19th year ... a marathon case [which] has long been considered a titanic struggle in the sidewalk wars over abortion."

No date has yet been set for oral argument. Based on the Court's calendar next autumn, 2005, it's anticipated that oral argument will be held sometime in late January, 2006.

Dramatic proof that the lower court's decision is fraught with perils for citizen protesters of all stripes is reflected by the great number of protest leaders and groups who have rallied in support of these RICO defendants as amici curiae. Among a host of other amici supporting this appeal are Martin Sheen, Dan Berrigan, Kathy Kelly, PETA, Helen Prejean, Pax Christi, Abe Bonowitz, Plowshares, Howard Zinn, Sojourners, Vieques Support Committee, Nevada Desert Experience, John Dear, Jim and Shelley Douglass, Michael Pfleger, and many others. The lower court's radical, unprecedented reading of the Hobbs Act would drastically reduce the threshold for ruinous RICO suits against citizen protesters.

Unions, too, stand to suffer from increased exposure to civil RICO damage suits and injunctions under the ruling below. Thus major unions (IBEW, IBT) also joined as amici curiae, as did a great many states fearing massive liability exposure (Alabama, Delaware, Michigan, Ohio, etc.).

Tom Brejcha, lead defense counsel for the Scheidler defendants going back to 1986, said: "We're elated that the high Court has seen fit to hear our appeal yet again. This time we trust that justice will not only be sure but also final."