home

Supreme Court Declines to Extend Hobbs Act to Cover Abortion Protest (Again)

by TChris

The National Organization for Women sued abortion protestors, claiming that they had violated the Hobbs Act, a federal law that prohibits the obstruction of commerce by robbery or extortion. The Supreme Court in 2003 held that extortion requires a plan to obtain the property of another, and concluded that a woman's pursuit of an abortion was not the kind of property that extortion laws protect.

When the case went back to the Seventh Circuit, the court of appeals focused on whether the protestors violated a different prohibition in the statute: the use of physical violence in furtherance of a plan to violate the Hobbs Act. The court of appeals essentially held that the Hobbs Act prohibits any act of violence that affects commerce, whether or not the violence is tied to robbery or extortion. Thankfully, the Supreme Court today unanimously rejected (pdf) that expansive view of the Hobbs Act -- an interpretation that could have federalized any criminal act of violence against a business that has some connection to interstate commerce.

NOW's attempt to use the Hobbs Act to pursue an injunction under RICO against abortion protestors was creative but flawed. As the Supreme Court noted, Congress enacted another law in 1994 to address violence at abortion clinics, making it unnecessary to advocate for a dangerous expansion of the Hobbs Act. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act protects women who seek abortions (and clinics) while preserving the right of protestors to engage in meaningful, nonviolent protest.

< A New Low | NYT Sues Defense Dept. Over NSA Surveillance Documents >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Supreme Court Declines to Extend Hobbs Act to (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    Although the ant- women/life forces have intentionally waged war on all fronts against the clinics, One of their tactics has been a very organized conspiracy to cause economic harm with the intention to put them out of business. Why did NOW need to file suit if the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was working?

    Re: Supreme Court Declines to Extend Hobbs Act to (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:14:38 AM EST
    One of their tactics has been a very organized conspiracy to cause economic harm with the intention to put them out of business. Why did NOW need to file suit if the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was working?
    Causing economic harm is not illegal; certain methods of doing so are illegal. A couple minutes of half-ar*ed researching by me suggests that when illegal methods -- like vandalism, violence, and physical obstruction -- are used, they're investigated and prosecuted, and they aren't so common as to cause economic ruin. In short, failure to stop legal activity doesn't indicate failure of law.

    Re: Supreme Court Declines to Extend Hobbs Act to (none / 0) (#3)
    by TChris on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:20:16 AM EST
    Squeaky, NOW filed the lawsuit before the FACE Act was enacted.

    Re: Supreme Court Declines to Extend Hobbs Act to (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    Thanks TChris. That makes sense.