Supreme Court of the United States
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.
February 26, 2003537 U.S. 393
Summary
The Court held that the defendants' conduct did not constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act because they interfered with and deprived the respondents of control over their property but did not obtain or attempt to obtain property from them. Because the federal and state extortion predicates, and the related Travel Act predicates, could not support the RICO verdict, the Court reversed and vacated the injunction without deciding whether private plaintiffs may obtain injunctive relief under RICO. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred in resisting an expansive reading of RICO, while Justice Stevens, dissenting, would have upheld the broader understanding of property and obtaining applied below.
Holding
- Hobbs Act extortion. Extortion under the Hobbs Act requires the defendant to obtain or attempt to obtain property from another. Interfering with, disrupting, or depriving a victim of control over property, without acquiring something of value from the victim, does not satisfy that requirement.
- Effect on the RICO judgment and injunction. Because all predicate acts supporting the jury's RICO finding were insufficient, the RICO judgment had to be reversed and the injunction vacated.
Docket 01-1118
Cited authorities
- 18 U.S.C. § 1951
- 18 U.S.C. § 1964
- 18 U.S.C. § 1951
- 18 U.S.C. § 1952
- 18 U.S.C. § 1951
- 18 U.S.C. § 1951
- N.Y. Penal Law §850
- 48 Stat. 979
Cited by
- Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Services Employees International Union
- The City of Boston v. Express Scripts, Inc.
- United States v. John Perry, Joseph Burhoe, James Deamicis and Thomas Flaherty
- In Re Nicholas J. Fiorillo Debtor. in Re Tracy Krowel, Debtor. Jonathan R. Goldsmith
- United States v. Christopher Finazzo, Douglas Dey
- United States of America, Appellant v. Kenneth Brissette; Timothy Sullivan, Defendants, Appellees.
- United States v. Valentini
- Young v. Schultz