1、Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS21345Updated March 24, 2003RICO and Abortion Clinic Protests in theSupreme Court: Scheidler v. NOWname redactedSenior SpecialistAmerican Law DivisionSummaryThe Supreme Court has rule
2、d that the National Organization for Women (NOW)and two abortion clinics may not sue anti-abortion protesters under the federal RacketeerInfluence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) provisions based solely upon allegationsthat the protesters efforts to shut down the clinics constituted extortion, Sche
3、idler v.NOW, 123 S.Ct. 1057 (2003). The majority opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, joinedby seven other justices noted that RICO requires the commission of a pattern ofracketeering activity. Racketeering activity is defined to include extortion under theHobbs Act, the Travel Act or state law. Yet
4、extortion requires the acquisition ofproperty from the victim by threat or force. In the eyes of the Court the protestersobtained no property. Consequently no crime of extortion occurred. Without extortion,no RICO violation occurred. Because the Court found there had been no RICOviolation, it became
升级VIP 