Future of nonviolent protest said to hinge on
appeal to high court
By ARTHUR JONES
An appeal is being pressed before the U.S. Supreme Court to
overturn a 1998 lower court decision that threatens the future of nonviolent
protest in the United States.
If the appeal is lost, it means the nonviolent protests that
marked the social transformations achieved by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., by
Dorothy Day or by César Chávez -- or, for example, the
demonstrations by protesters at the School of the Americas -- could be
classified as racketeering and punished with triple damage suits.
Many who oppose what they see as Bush administration inroads into
civil liberties have paid scant attention to this case, however, because the
cases starting point -- in 1986 -- centers on nonviolent antiabortion
protests outside abortion clinics.
Those concerned about the consequences of the 1998 lower court
decision in National Organization of Women v. Joseph Scheidler et al
include such activist groups as the Seamless Garment Network, the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, Catholic Worker houses and Sojourners, an
evangelical-inspired community in Washington.
More than 40 individuals and two-dozen organizations have joined
the case as amici curiae, friends of the court. The Supreme
Court justices have not yet said whether they will hear an appeal.
The Scheidler in the case is Joseph Scheidler, a nonviolent
activist and Chicago-based executive director of the Pro-Life Action League.
He, Timothy Murphy and Andrew Scholberg, plus the Pro-Life Action League and
Operation Rescue, were accused in a 1986 class-action suit led by the National
Organization of Women, NOW, with violating the 1970 Racketeer-Influenced
Corrupt Organizations law, called RICO, by using forcible blockades and the
threat of violence to close down abortion clinics nationwide.
NOWs argument was that blockading clinic doors and harassing
women using the clinics was a national conspiracy.
Quite simply, NOW wanted to force Scheidler, the Pro-Life Action
League and Operation Rescue out of business by bankrupting them. RICOs
use in the case was upheld in 1994 by the Supreme Court, and, in April 1998, a
six-person jury in Chicago federal court found for NOW, with damages of
$83,000. That amount quickly became $258,000 (including interest) as RICO laws
permit tripling of damages. More than 1,000 U.S. abortion clinics could make
claims against the defendants.
Following the 1998 decision, Chicagos Cardinal Francis
George commented, If the courts had been used to stop organized sit-ins
at lunch counters through the South in the 60s there would have been no
civil rights movement.
To date not a penny has been paid because the Chicago ruling has
been in abeyance during appeal. Tom Brejcha, the lawyer for Scheidler and the
other defendants, said with appeal papers now filed, the clerks to the Supreme
Court justices will provide a memoranda as to whether this case is worthy
of review. Some time in late April or early May, the justices might
vote it up or down, or they might ask the administration to file a brief,
said Brejcha. If four justices vote to hear it, a briefing schedule and oral
argument dates would be set, carrying the issue over into the next Supreme
Court term.
If, however, the justices vote down the appeal, a petition for
rehearing can be filed. Beyond that, he said, the courts would enforce the
earlier verdict and the security, the Scheidlers home and
cash, would be forfeited, and theyd capture all the assets
owned by the league and by individuals.
Many commentators see the RICO law application in this case as
blurring the line between protest covered by the First Amendment and criminal
activity. The Chicago cardinal said, The decision effectively equates
freedom of speech with racketeering.
In joining the current appeal as an amicus, the Peter
Maurin Center in Washington, (Maurin with Day was a cofounder of the Catholic
Worker Movement), said the misapplication of the law in this way permits
the government to single out and criminalize movements for social change
virtually at will. Affording the government power of this nature renders
democratic practices timid and superficial -- and essentially disempowers the
people in the political process.
The center stated that these RICO law consequences need to be
nullified to protect popular, and especially unpopular, political
expression.
Scheidler himself, in his current brief, said of his pro-life
work, I have carried on my crusade right out in the open. Ive not
been subtle, Ive been blunt, direct and very likely -- at times, at least
-- abrasive.
But, he continued, My methods have always been nonviolent.
Yes, said Scheidler, I have praised the motives and zeal of those
who attempted to end abortion by resorting to violence, but while praising
their motives I have decried, denounced and disparaged their methods. I have
urged them and all others to pursue nonviolent means [by arguing] that violence
is counterproductive.
Lawyer Brejcha, a graduate of Notre Dame and the New York
University Law School who in early civil rights work defended Black Panthers,
later worked on mainstream business law cases such as antitrust suits. In 1997,
after handling the Scheidler case for 10 years, he resigned from his law firm
to found The Thomas More Law Center and concentrate on the Scheidler
appeal.
Arthur Jones is NCR editor at large. His e-mail address
is AJones96@aol.com
National Catholic Reporter, March 22,
2002
|