Source: cases/18usc1962/us-510-249-now-v-scheidler.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_510/0249_01/index.html
Consequently, since the enterprise in subsection (c) is not being acquired, it need not have a property interest that can be acquired nor an economic motive for engaging in illegal activity; it need only be an association in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Congress has not, either in the definitional section or in the operative language, required that an “enterprise” in § 1962(c) have an economic motive.
We hold only that RICO contains no economic motive requirement.
An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit-seeking motives.
predicate acts, such as the alleged extortion, may not benefit the protesters financially but still may drain money from the economy by harming businesses such as the clinics which are petitioners in this case
Respondents contend that petitioners are unable to show that their actions violated the Hobbs Act. We do not reach that issue and express no opinion upon it.
The questions whether respondents committed the requisite predicate acts, and whether the commission of these acts fell into a pattern, are not before us.
The District Court dismissed petitioners’ claim at the pleading stage pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), so their complaint must be sustained if relief could be granted “under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.”
Nothing more is needed to confer standing on DWHO and SWHO at the pleading stage.
casedsl 1
case /us/510/0249-01
name National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
cite 510 U.S. 249 (1994)
court Supreme Court of the United States
date 1994-01-24
url catalog/cases/us/volume_510/0249_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl sha1=e4a312339f9e2a1428a90e935e1da5dfefb0eff2 chars=27829
law 18usc1962 (c),(d)
role rule-announced
posture civil; Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal affirmed by CA7 for want of an economic motive; certiorari on whether the enterprise or the predicate acts must have an economic purpose
result remanded
element enterprise : not-reached
party Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), a coalition of antiabortion groups
variant association-in-fact/non-economic-advocacy-coalition
fact @1051..1329 [supports] | Respondents are a coalition of antiabortion groups called the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), Joseph Scheidler and other individuals and organizations that oppose legal abortion, and a medical laboratory that formerly provided services to the two petitioner health care centers.
fact @2432..2662 [supports] | The amended complaint alleged that respondents were members of a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity including extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951.
fact @3337..3454 [supports] | According to the amended complaint, PLAN constitutes the alleged racketeering “enterprise” for purposes of § 1962(c).
rule @12588..12869 | Consequently, since the enterprise in subsection (c) is not being acquired, it need not have a property interest that can be acquired nor an economic motive for engaging in illegal activity; it need only be an association in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity.
rule @15516..15666 | Congress has not, either in the definitional section or in the operative language, required that an “enterprise” in § 1962(c) have an economic motive.
held @18463..18526 | We hold only that RICO contains no economic motive requirement.
gloss Politically/ideologically motivated group with no profit-seeking purpose can be a (c) enterprise; the enterprise under (c) is the "vehicle", not the "victim" or "prize" as under (a)/(b).
gloss Was `satisfied [law]`: the Court held only that no economic motive is required and reversed a 12(b)(6) dismissal resting on that supposed requirement; whether PLAN is an enterprise in any other respect was not adjudicated.
element commerce : not-reached
variant affects-commerce/detrimental-effect-without-profit-motive
fact @2871..3161 [supports] | Petitioners alleged that respondents conspired to use threatened or actual force, violence, or fear to induce clinic employees, doctors, and patients to give up their jobs, give up their economic right to practice medicine, and give up their right to obtain medical services at the clinics.
rule @9808..9942 | An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit-seeking motives.
gloss "Affect" commerce includes harming the commerce of others (the clinics); the commerce clause of (c) does not smuggle in an economic-motive requirement. Whether the commerce nexus is actually met was not separately decided.
element racketeering.extortion : not-reached
variant hobbs-act-extortion/non-economic-motive
fact @7821..7979 [supports] | In addition, petitioners claimed that respondent Scheidler threatened DWHO’s clinic administrator with reprisals if she refused to quit her job at the clinic.
rule @13786..13995 | predicate acts, such as the alleged extortion, may not benefit the protesters financially but still may drain money from the economy by harming businesses such as the clinics which are petitioners in this case
held @19379..19536 | Respondents contend that petitioners are unable to show that their actions violated the Hobbs Act. We do not reach that issue and express no opinion upon it.
gloss Only decided: predicate acts need no economic motive. Whether the conduct is Hobbs Act extortion ("obtaining of property") was expressly reserved.
element pattern : not-reached
role background
held @18308..18462 | The questions whether respondents committed the requisite predicate acts, and whether the commission of these acts fell into a pattern, are not before us.
element injury : satisfied [pleaded]
role applied
scope procedural
party DWHO and SWHO (the clinics); NOW itself did not sue under RICO
variant business-injury/clinic-operations-disrupted-by-threats
fact @7474..7645 [supports] | DWHO and SWHO alleged in their complaint that respondents conspired to use force to induce clinic staff and patients to stop working and obtain medical services elsewhere.
fact @7686..7801 [supports] | Petitioners claimed that this conspiracy “has injured the business and/or property interests of the [petitioners].”
rule @7155..7421 | The District Court dismissed petitioners’ claim at the pleading stage pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), so their complaint must be sustained if relief could be granted “under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.”
held @8122..8203 | Nothing more is needed to confer standing on DWHO and SWHO at the pleading stage.
gloss Decided as Article III standing (injury fairly traceable), not as the §1964(c) "business or property" element as such; recorded here because the same allegation serves both.
element investment : not-reached
gloss (a) claim dismissed below (donations were not income derived from the alleged racketeering); certiorari covered only (c) and (d).
element conduct : not-reached
element conspiracy : not-reached
gloss (d) claim was dismissed below only because the substantive claims fell; revived by the reversal without separate analysis.
misfit The holding is the ABSENCE of a requirement (no economic motive for either the enterprise or the predicate acts): one negative rule about several elements at once. v1 records it as three rule-announced, not-reached blocks (enterprise, commerce, racketeering.extortion); the .law side has a `not-required` line for it, but a .case block still cannot say "element X does not require property Y" or point at that line.
misfit Article III standing is recorded under `injury` with `scope procedural`, which keeps it out of the instance count; the id still names the §1964(c) "business or property" element, which the Court did not address (an x-standing id would be more honest).
misfit First Amendment limits (majority fn. declining to reach; Souter/Kennedy concurrence saying it remains an as-applied defense) are a potential `defense` that was raised but expressly not decided; no way to record an undecided defense except a bare line.
misfit The enterprise plays a different ROLE per subsection (vehicle in (c); prize/victim in (a),(b)) and the rule depends on that role; the .law file now states this as constraint enterprise-role-by-subsection, but a .case block has one `enterprise` id for all subsections and cannot reference a constraint.