Reaction to the political use of RICO was muted because the targets -- anti-abortion demonstrators -- are very much out of favor with civil liberties groups and the chattering classes. One who did speak up, Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, said this use of RICO "is unprecedented and raises serious questions about chilling important opportunities for political protest. This stretches the law beyond its logical limits."
The National Organization for Women (NOW) and two abortion clinics sued under RICO. The case did not involve lethal violence, such as arson and bombing. The anti-abortion activists were accused of making threats, blocking clinic doorways, putting glue in door locks, occasional grabbing and pushing of doctors or patients, and "creating an atmosphere" that made arson and bombing possible.
Criminal acts deserve punishment, but RICO allowed these mostly low-level offenses to be lumped together and seen as a broad conspiracy. People who join sit-ins or blockades or who lie down in front of clinics may expect to spend a night or two in jail. Under RICO, they stood to lose their homes and businesses and spend years in a federal prison. Joseph Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League, a target of NOW, owed $440,000, including triple damages, after a RICO jury ruled against him. To pay this off, he took out a $70,000 loan and his home in Chicago was placed in escrow, pending the outcome of the case.
The Supreme Court ruling said RICO's anti-extortion and racketeering laws apply only when force if used to "obtain property." NOW had argued that a woman's right to medical help and a clinic's ability to stay open both qualified as property. The concepts of "extortion" and "obtaining property" used in RICO cases comes from another law, the Hobbs Act, and courts have constantly broadened their meaning. The Supreme Court put a stop to this process. The court also lifted the injunction that stopped all the defendants' protests nationwide.