National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
| National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued December 8, 1993 Decided January 24, 1994 |
||||||
| Full case name | National Organization for Women, Inc., et al. v. Joseph Scheidler, et al. | |||||
| Citations | 510 U.S. 249 (more) |
|||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act applies to enterprises without economic motives, including anti-abortion protesters. Seventh Circuit reversed. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg | |||||
| Concurrence | Souter, joined by Kennedy | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) | ||||||
- Not to be confused with 2003 and 2006 cases both named Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.
National Organization for Women v. Scheidler was an American court case decided Jan 24, 1994. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) could apply to enterprises without economic motives; pro-life protesters could thus be prosecuted under it. An organization without an economic motive can still affect interstate or foreign commerce and thus satisfy the Act's definition of a racketeering enterprise.
The Court did not issue judgment on whether or not the Pro-Life Action Network, the organization in question, had committed actions that could be prosecuted under RICO.
G. Robert Blakey argued on behalf of Scheidler, while Miguel Estrada represented the United States as amicus curiae in favor of reversal.
The case was superseded by Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. in 2003.
[edit] External links
 |
This article relating to case law in the United States, or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
