In the last few years there have been a couple of lawsuits filed under the |Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization| statutes against animal rights activists and groups. Long before these lawsuits, however, abortion rights groups were testing the limits of the RICO statutes by suing anti-abortion protesters charging that even if the protesters didn’t directly engage in violent acts, they were nonetheless part of a criminal conspiracy designed to shut down a legitimate enterprise. In the first week of October, developments in two such cases emerged.
In the first case, NOW v. Scheidler, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected an appeal by anti-abortion activist Joseph Scheidler that a court order against him violated his First Amendment rights.
Scheidler and several other people who were members of an anti-abortion group repeatedly engaged in acts of civil disobedience at abortion clinics (which occurred prior to the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act). Among other things, Scheidler and others obstructed access to abortion clinics, damaged clinic property, and on occasion threatened people try to enter the clinic. Pretty much the same tactics often used by animal rights activists.
NOW argued in court that the pattern of actions by Scheidler and his associates constituted evidence of a criminal conspiracy designed to illegally interfere with the operation of a legitimate enterprise. Scheidler, for his part, argued that individuals in his organization were acting on their own ethical principles, and that in fact some members had acted in ways that he disapproved of. The Court rejected that argument, essentially arguing that because the defendants were board members of the same group, had written letters in support of illegal acts, and participated in the planning of illegal acts, that the organization itself had a criminal purpose.
The second case, Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette, et al. v. American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), et al. revolves around a web site known as the “Nuremberg Files.” The Nuremberg Files site posted pictures and personal information of abortion providers in the form of Wanted Posters.
The anti-abortion activists argued that the web site content was a legitimate form of free speech, but a jury ruled against the activists in a RICO lawsuit and awarded abortion providers a $107.5 million judgment. The Ninth Circuit Court had originally ruled in 1999 that at the Wanted Posters constituted “true threats,” allowing the lawsuit to proceed. But after the jury’s verdict, a three-judge panel reversed the judgment saying that the Wanted Posters were protected by the First Amendment.
Now, the Ninth Circuit Court has agreed to review that decision, and is very likely to restate its original thinking about the wanted posters and reinstate the jury’s verdict. Either way, this lawsuit is definitely headed to the Supreme Court.
If these lawsuits ultimately are successful, they will provide ample tools that will inevitably be used to pursue legal action against animal rights activists. For example, under most circumstances it would be difficult to pursue legal action against an organization such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but under RICO a lawsuit arguing that PETA’s pattern of actions constitute a criminal conspiracy might be successful. And PETA’s pretty careful about putting some distance between itself and those who commit acts of violence — many other groups would be sitting ducks for such lawsuits.
At the very least, as they did with the anti-abortion movement, such lawsuits would cripple many of the more extremist parts of the animal rights movement by tying them up in court for years and forcing them to try to keep up with very expensive legal bills.
Sources:
“Nuremberg Files” Case Will Be Reconsidered. Feminist Daily News Wire, October 4, 2001.
Anti-abortion extremists suffer major court defeat. Feminist Daily News Wire, October 2, 2001.