Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Abortion Protesters

From Associated Press via Yahoo:
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

The 8-0 decision
[ED.: UNANIMOUS!] ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the appellate court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence.

In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend
[ED.: So, is it safe to say that Justice Breyer DIDN'T rely on foreign law in writing this opinion?] to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Instead, Breyer wrote, Congress chose to address violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which set parameters for such protests.

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with abortion demonstrators in arguing that lawsuits and injunctions based on the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

The legal battle began in 1986, when the National Organization for Women filed a class-action suit challenging tactics used by the Pro-Life Action Network to block women from entering abortion clinics.

NOW's legal strategy was novel at the time, relying on civil provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was used predominantly in criminal cases against organized crime. The lawsuit also relied on the Hobbs Act, a 55-year-old law banning extortion.


[More]

(emphasis and editorial comments added)
My Comments:
For some background on this case, read this Fumare post from last June, which includes an interesting exchange between the bloggers and a NOW official.

1 Comments:

At 2/28/2006 4:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

8-0 decision [ED.: UNANIMOUS!]

Considering that the original decision (assuming this is indeed it) was 8-1 (with Stevens dissenting), it isn't exactly amazing. What is amazing is that the 7th Circuit kept the thing alive after the 8-1 decision.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger