Opinion: Racketeer law goes too far

A Times Editorial

Racketeer law goes too far

In 1970, when Congress passed the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, the law's loose standards of culpability and triple fine provisions were aimed at the Mafia. Since then, the law has been used -- or abused -- to go after banks, investment firms and even political protesters.

Just how far RICO can go in making racketeers of anti-abortion protesters is a question the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer. The court should use the opportunity to retreat as much as possible from its earlier decision that allowed RICO to be used against political organizations using civil disobedience to advance their cause.

The case the Supreme Court has agreed to review was initially filed by the National Organization for Women and a group of abortion clinics back in 1986. NOW sued Operation Rescue and other antiabortion organizations under RICO, claiming their blockades of clinics and various illegal acts attempting to shut down clinic operations constituted a pattern of racketeering activity. Eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in this very case that RICO could be applied to organizations that were engaged in illegal activities for ideological reasons. That ruling opened the door to a trial that resulted in a victory for NOW, with the award of damages of more than $250,000. In addition to the money damages, the antiabortion groups were put under a nationwide injunction prohibiting them from engaging in any unlawful protest activity, such as trespass.

The high court has agreed to review two issues: first, whether the RICO statute allows for the granting of injunctive relief to private litigants; and second, whether the conduct engaged in by the protesters qualifies as extortion under the Hobbs Act, a federal law making it a crime to obtain another's property by use of actual or threatened force.

NOW was successful in claiming a woman's right to abortion services qualifies as intangible property under the Hobbs Act. With that understanding, a jury found the protesters had violated the law 21 times.

NOW could not have brought suit under RICO without proving that the protesters had engaged in at least two criminal acts listed as predicates under RICO. Because RICO was intended to apply to organized crime, the statute lists homicide, drug dealing, extortion and kidnapping as predicates -- not trespass, blockades and minor property damage.

The court should have taken up the issue of whether the application of RICO to political protesters has chilled First Amendment rights. Animal rights groups urged the court to take the appeal. They, too, have been sued under RICO for illegal acts associated with their protests.

We hope the court narrows RICO's reach, finding that extortion means the taking of something tangible and that private parties may not qualify for injunctive relief under the terms of the statute. If the court is not willing to address the larger constitutional issues, at least it should minimize the damage.