Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women

537 U.S. 393 (2003)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women

United States Supreme Court

537 U.S. 393 (2003)

Facts

Joseph Scheidler (defendant) was a member of the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN) (defendant), a coalition of groups that opposed legal abortion. The National Organization for Woman, Incorporated (NOW) and two healthcare centers that performed abortions (plaintiffs) sued PLAN and Scheidler in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). NOW alleged that PLAN was part of a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through racketeering. The allegations of racketeering included extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act. The acts complained of included using force and threats of force, violence, or fear to cause women seeking abortions and abortion-clinic workers to give up their rights to seek medical treatment and to work, respectively. After trial, a jury found PLAN had violated civil provisions of RICO and committed 21 violations of the Hobbs Act by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity. The jury awarded monetary damages to NOW members. The district court issued a permanent injunction against PLAN regarding its misconduct towards abortion clinics. The court of appeals affirmed the jury verdict. The court of appeals found that intangible property rights may be considered property under the Hobbs Act and that extortion does not require the seeking of money or other tangible property. PLAN appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)

Concurrence (Ginsburg, J.)

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership