Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, December 9, 1993 TAG: 9312090143
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: From The Associated Press and The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
But anti-abortion activists told the court that subjecting them to the racketeering law would harm their right to political protest.
The National Organization for Women and the Clinton administration said lower courts wrongly threw out a NOW lawsuit that had invoked the disputed law against Operation Rescue, the Pro-Life Action League and other abortion foes.
The anti-abortion groups urged the justices to let the lawsuit die.
A decision is expected by July.
Some protesters have used "forcible, violent conduct . . . any means necessary, including terrorism," Fay Clayton, a lawyer for NOW, told the court. She said such people call peaceful abortion protesters "wimps," and are more interested in "mob violence" than protest.
But Robert Blakey, the Notre Dame University law professor representing the groups NOW sued, likened anti-abortion-rights protesters who block abortion-clinic access to civil rights and labor leaders who led boycotts.
Blakey said Congress never intended to stifle political dissent when it passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or RICO, in 1970 to attack organized crime.
Now, the law is used in lawsuits involving just about any business dispute. And the Supreme Court, in a series of prior rulings, consistently has refused to narrow how the broadly worded law is applied.
But Blakey argued that even the law's name reflects "the notion of commercial gain" - showing that Congress wasn't interested in punishing politically or ideologically inspired acts.
"The concept of illicit gain pervades this statute" and anti-abortion groups have no economic motives, Blakey said.
That point is central to the legal case.
A federal court dismissed NOW's RICO complaint, saying the law requires an economic motive on the part of the accused. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, affirmed.
In its appeal, NOW argues that the text of the 1970 law mentions no economic motive and that Congress intended to write a broad statute to penalize a range of criminal acts. The Clinton administration has agreed, saying the 7th Circuit's construction of RICO could hurt government's ability to prosecute terrorism and other violence motivated by political or religious purposes.
RICO, which can be invoked by prosecutors in a criminal action or by individuals in a civil suit, targets "enterprises" that engage in a "pattern of racketeering." It loosely defines the pattern to include two or more incidents of criminal activity such as extortion, arson and kidnapping.
Justice Department lawyer Miguel Estrada said requiring an economic motive for RICO enforcement threatens to "really cripple" government efforts to get at terrorists and their ringleaders.
Only Justice Antonin Scalia voiced any sympathy for Blakey's view of the law during the 60-minute argument session.
Noting that the law is aimed at any "enterprise" involved in a pattern of racketeering activity, Scalia said it is possible "enterprise means the same thing as business enterprise."
But Clayton argued, "Congress knew how to put a limitation in RICO when it wanted to. Congress did not write the statute that way."
Congress is expected to pass a law soon giving new protection to abortion clinics, their staffs and patients. But the law, already approved in slightly different versions by the House and Senate, would not allow lawsuits against alleged national conspiracies and their leaders. It also does not provide for the tripled damages that winners of RICO lawsuits can collect.
by CNB