Fewer people know what RICO is then NOW, I would imagine.
…couldn’t agree more. It took a visit to Wikipedia to find out that the OP was talking about the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. I’ll also note that the OP’s cite does not mention the quote in the OP, and the MSNBC citation doesn’t use the the term RICO at all. (Although it does refer to the Act directly.) So for the uninitiated or the international reader, any other headline would make very little sense.
ROFL! That made me laugh out loud (really did!). Anyway, the Court ruled properly. The RICO law was aimed at organized crime and racketeering, not at irate protesters. So, yes the RICO law really was aimed at Rico 
I agree. RICO SUAVE is an entirely inappropriate song to play at an abortion protest.
RICO laws have also been used to get around the principle that a spouse can’t be forced to testify aganst her husband. Basically, DAs have said to the spouses of marijuana dealers, “Lady, unless you turn state’s evidence on your husband, we’ll prosecute you as a co-conspirator with him under RICO laws. And they’ve done that.”
Geez, it would be nice to see the Court rule against THAT use of RICO. But somehow, I’m not holding my breath.
If you’re a New Yorker, you know about RICO. And the abuse of RICO. Sigh.
Ok, I’ve got a point that may be worthy of debate, or at least explanation.
As I understand it, the Court originally (1991?) said that RICO could be used for these types of cases, so long as you prove that the specific actions involved are within the scope of RICO. This case came back up several years later, whereupon the Court “reversed” itself and ruled that the case did not meet the criteria to be prosecuted under RICO.
The word “reversed” was used in a New York Times article I read last night, which is also where I got my understanding of the rest of the last paragraph. However, the article is no longer available; the new article is shorter and leaves out most discussion of the earlier cases.
However, my take on this, having skimmed the abstract and a few other news reports, is that the late 1990s case was not a reversal at all. Rather the Court ruled that on 100-some specific acts of violence, the prosecution did not prove that they fell under RICO. This apparently overlooked four more acts, which were the subject of Monday’s ruling.
I am sure someone will correct any factual errors or misconceptions above, but my real concern is whether this late 1990s ruling constitutes a reversal for the Court. If not, that may explain in part why the NY Times article was revised.
Link to the opinion itself, Scheidler v. NOW, Inc., Case No. 04-1244
I’m not so sure. I make no claim w/r/t the correctness of the decision at issue, because I don’t know RICO well enough to discuss it intelligently. But it seems to me that the federal government should be in the business of protecting individuals’ exercise of their federal constitutional rights and, for the time being anyway, the right to an abortion falls within that category. I mean, state laws against battery apply to mail carriers, too, but would you argue that the federal government shouldn’t create legislation prosecuting those who violently obstruct the efficient delivery of the mails? States have laws against fraud, which is almost as central to the police power as the prevention of assault, but the Secret Service still investigates counterfeits. In my view, even though these exercises of federal power overlap areas of state control, they’re appropriate because their function is ancillary to other powers constitutionally granted the United States.
–Cliffy
The feds already are. From the AP article (already quoted in post #9)
Of course, this means that if the left starts organizing its own mass demonstrations – even if they were for the purpose of obstructing government business, like the draft-office blockades and sit-ins of the '60s – RICO could not be used against them, either. Could it?
The article mentions that the AFL-CIO supported the pro-life activists in the appeal. Presumably they were afraid that RICO could be used against labor protesters.
Upon reading the *Scheidler *decision it appears that the Supremes sidestepped the question of whether or not RICO applies, choosing instead to decide the case based on the argument that the 1940s era Hobbs Act did not apply because Congress had decided to regulate this field through the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 and not through Hobbs. As I understand it, the plaintiff NOW was arguing that repeated violations of Hobbs amounted to necessary predicate acts under RICO. In the present case the SC ruled that Hobbs did not apply because the anti-abortion protestors acts didn’t amount to extortion of money, which was what Hobbs was intended to prohibit.
While I agree with the decision it appears that RICO’s application hasn’t been forbidden.
You don’t need to use RICO to break up blockades of draft offices. The government can remove people, even people engaging in free speech, if the noncommunicative aspects of their speech (ie their bodies blocking the door) interferes with the draft.