Document: 547 U.S. 9 (2006) SCHEIDLER ET AL. v. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., No. 04-1244. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 30, 2005. Decided February 28, 2006.[*] *12 Alan Untereiner argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on briefs 04-1244 were Roy T. Englert, Jr., Kathryn S. Zecca, Noah Messing, Thomas Brejcha, Deborah Fischer, and D. Colette Wilson. On 04-1352 Jay Sekulow, Walter M. Weber, Paul J. Larkin, Stuart Roth, Vincent P. McCarthy, Ann-Louise Lohr, Monaghan, John Tuskey, Laura B. Hernandez, Shannon Woodruff, Larry L. Crain, Robert W. Ash. Lisa Blatt States as amicus curiae urging reversal. her brief Acting Solicitor General Kneedler, Assistant Attorney Richter, Deputy Dreeben, Kathleen A. Felton, Frank Marine. Erwin Chemerinsky National Organization Women, Inc., et al., respondents Hoffman, Laurie Levenson, Catherine Fisk, Fay Clayton, Lowell E. Sachnoff, Jack Block, Susman.[] *13 JUSTICE BREYER delivered opinion Court. A section Title 18 Code (called Hobbs Act) says that an individual commits a federal crime if he or she "obstructs, delays, affects commerce" by (1) "robbery," (2) "extortion," (3) "commit[ting] threaten[ing] physical violence to any person property furtherance plan purpose do anything violation this section." § 1951(a) (emphasis added). The dispute these cases concerns meaning underscored words, particular "in Does phrase refer (violence committed pursuant to) those plans purposes affect interstate commerce through robbery extortion? Or does it commerce, plain simple? If former, statute governs only limited subset violent behavior, namely, behavior connected with extortion. latter, far broader range human activity, all actions (against persons property) commerce. In our view, *14 more restrictive reading Act is correct interpretation. I Petitioners are individuals (and organizations) who engage pro-life, anti-abortion protest activities. Respondents health care clinics perform abortions pro-choice national nonprofit organization supports legal availability abortions. 1986, (pro-choice) respondents, believing (pro-life) had tried disrupt activities at various other unlawful activities, brought action, which sought damages injunction forbidding from engaging such anywhere Nation. based their claims upon Act, certain laws forbid extortion, anti-racketeering statute, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO), C. 1962. petitioners' clinic-related amounted context They added extortionate acts created "pattern racketeering activity"a pattern RICO defines terms predicate include See 1961(1) (2000 ed., Supp. III). And they permanent injunction, believed authorized. 1964 ed.). Initially, District dismissed complaint. It concluded requires proof alleged criminal motivated economic purposea lacking here. Inc. Scheidler, 765 F. 937 (ND Ill. 1991). Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed. 968 F.2d 612 (1992). But held "requires no motive," therefore reversed remanded case further proceedings. *15 510 249, 252 (1994). After trial, jury found engaged host extortionate, extortion-related, acts. awarded treble two (a matter not issue here), entered nationwide injunction. §§ 1964(a), (c). 267 F.3d 687 (2001). This again reversed. Scheidler 537 393 (2003) (NOW II). We noted "extortion" necessarily including improper "`obtaining another.'" Id., 400 (quoting 1951(b)(2)). pointed out claimed "property" consisted "a woman's right seek medical services clinic, doctors, nurses clinic staff jobs, provide free wrongful threats, violence, coercion fear." 400-401 (internal quotation marks omitted). decided "[w]hatever outer boundaries may be, effort characterize here `obtaining from' well beyond them." 402. Accordingly, we "because did `obtain' respondents," "did commit extortion" defined Act. 397. state extortion law violations, extortion-related flawed same reason must also be set aside. 410. Our concluded: "Because supporting jury's finding reversed, judgment violated Without underlying violation, issued vacated." 411. *16 remand, order terminate vacate its Instead, considered respondents' argument verdict rested many instances conduct, but four (or threats) unrelated 91 Fed. Appx. 510, 512 (2004). parties presented theory and, result, occasion consider whether alone might constitute violations (sufficient, under RICO, support injunction). id., 513. make determination. Ibid. certiorari review ruling. granted writ following three questions: Whether improperly disregarded Court's mandate NOW II holding need vacated; forbids conduct robbery; authorizes private party obtain now answer second question. hold falls outside scope since question entry favor, shall first third questions. forth Act's text. relevant statutory imposes liability "[w]hoever way degree obstructs, movement article commodity *17 attempts conspires so do, threatens ...." question, have said, modifies term "physical violence," words Do furthers "affec[t] ... extortion," simply commerce"? believe restrictive, textthe ties extortionis correct. For one thing, language makes natural one. text precedes clause obstructing, delaying, affecting commerce); rather, "by extortion." means "violation" involves related conspiracies). Consequently, reference threats section" added) would seem mean kind otherwise violation. supported fact Congress often intends "affect read art connecting *18 congressional exercise legislative authority constitutional provision (here, Commerce Clause) grants authority. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. Dobson, 513 265, 273 (1995); Russell States, 471 858, 859 (1985). Such jurisdictional limit, will primarily define, calls law. Cf. Jones 529 848, 854 (2000) (holding using "affecting commerce," "`Congress define described [18 C.] 844(i) explosion building whose damage destruction commerce,'" noting look "qualifying language" offense). another statute's history reading. enacted predecessor 1934. Anti-Racketeering ch. 569, 48 Stat. 979 (reproduced Appendix A, infra). That prohibited appropriately placed prohibitions 2(a) 2(b), respectively. 980. went 2(c) impose anyone who, connection "[c]ommits act injury violate sections (a) (b)." Ibid.; see II, U. S., 407. 1934 explicitly linked 2(c), subsection, 2(b). thereby made crystal clear was injure 1946, superseding law, Ch. 537, 60 420 B, new changed old significant respects: while omitting coercion. *19 supra, 407; Culbert, 435 371, 377 (1978) ("The bill eventually became substituted specific against language"). like absolutely explicit respect point issue, necessary link between crimes (now robbery). 1946 reads follows: "SEC. 2. Whoever guilty felony. 3. others, concert others 2 4. participates attempt 5. felony." As clear, prohibits 5's when Each reflects approach; each refers back 2's prohibition contains nothing contrary. Indeed, Committee Reports floor debates emphasized "the `to prevent *20 bill.'" H. R. Rep. 238, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., (1945); emphasis Culbert); 376-378 (discussing history). nowhere suggested intended freestanding crime. present less than version. linguistic changes reflect redefine To contrary, revised 1948 part general revision Criminal Code. "1948 Revision create recodify then existence." Morissette 342 246, 269, n. 28 (1952). has written "not presume worked change substantive `unless intent [a] chang[e] clearly expressed.'" Keene Corp. 508 200, 209 (1993) Fourco Glass Co. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 222, 227 (1957); alteration Keene). there evidence intent. Rather, Reviser's Notes indicate amount "changes phraseology arrangement effect consolidation." 304, 80th A131 (1947). Finally, interpretation broadens what assumed. federalize much ordinary ranging simple assault murder, typically subject state, federal, prosecution. Decisions assumed intend broad reach. 405 (noting embodied required obtaining property, coercion); 411 (GINSBURG, J., concurring) (coercion, covered *21 "more accurately describes nature [non-property-related] actions" omitted)); Enmons, 410 396, (1973) (Hobbs reach activity union members seeking higher wages because "cover overtly coercive course of" labor dispute). Not surprisingly, Courts rejected construction Yankowski, 184 1071 (CA9 1999); Franks, 511 25 (CA6 1975). 1994, aimed directly type abortion litigation, suggesting already addressed activity. Freedom Access Clinic Entrances 248(a)(3) (imposing "intentionally destroys facility, so, facility provides reproductive services"). III Respondents' contrary claim rests canon favors interpretations give function word avoiding superfluity. Menasche, 348 528, 538-539 (1955) ("It duty effect, possible, every statute'" Montclair Ramsdell, 107 147, 152 (1883))). that, definitions conspiracies) encompass takes place threats), "[t]here prohibiting violence" unless offense. Brief 25; 1951(b)(1) (defining "robbery" "unlawful taking *22 personal actual threatened force, added)); 1951(b)(2) use fear" added)). Petitioners, however, small additional work do. 04-1244, pp. 33-36; Amicus Curiae 11-12. hypothetical mobster demands payment business. Those attempted extortion; subsequent noncomplying business subordinates punishable conspiracy privy mobster's plan. bring subordinates' within coverage. adds permits prosecutors multiple charges conduct. instance, apply defendant injured bystanders during robbery, permitting Government charge separate robbery. Tr. Oral Arg. 22. concede small. cover instances, perhaps desire emphasize problem led original version prohibited, 19. similarly carry view forward into recodification. 20-21. *23 canons cannot lead us conclusion. tools designed help courts better determine intended, interpret Chickasaw Nation 534 84, 94 (2001) "canons mandatory rules" guides "designed judges Legislature's intent," "other circumstances evidencing can overcome force"). IV conclude offense petitioners. ordered. ALITO took consideration decision APPENDIXES TO OPINION OF THE COURT 1934, 979, provided: "AN ACT "To protect trade interference coercion, intimidation. "Be Senate House Representatives America assembled, `trade commerce', used *24 herein, foreign nations, Columbia, Territory Columbia State Territory, over jurisdiction. Any relation moving about move commerce "(a) Obtains obtain, threat money valuable considerations, purchase rental protective services, including, bona-fide employer employee; "(b) another, his consent, induced force fear, color official right; "(c) Commits (b); "(d) Conspires concertedly foregoing acts; shall, conviction thereof, felony punished imprisonment ten years fine $10,000, both. `wrongful' Territory. `property', `money', `valuable considerations' herein deemed paid employee." (Emphasis original.) *25 B 420, 1. title `commerce' State, points jurisdiction; `Territory' possession `robbery' presence will, fear injury, immediate future, custody possession, relative member family company time obtaining. `extortion' right. *26 6. violates title twenty both." C 1951, amended 1948, provides: fined imprisoned years, section "(1) "(2) "(3) Possession States; *27 Possession, thereof; State; construed repeal, modify 17 15, 52, 101-115, 151-166 29 151-188 45." NOTES [*] Together 04-1352, Operation Rescue court. [] Briefs amici reversal filed Alabama al. Troy King, Alabama, Kevin Newsom, General, Attorneys respective Suthers Colorado, Jane Brady Delaware, Phill Kline Kansas, Michael Cox Michigan, Jim Petro Ohio, Lawrence Long South Dakota, Greg Abbott Texas, Mark Shurtleff Utah; American Federation Labor Industrial Jonathan Hiatt, James Coppess, Laurence Gold; Americans Life Clarke Forsythe, Denise Burke, G. Blakey; Concerned Women Theresa Schrempp Lorbiecki; Consistent Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Joseph Mathias Cosgrove, Jeffrey Kerr; Legal Defense Foundation Short Andrew Zepeda. affirmance Feminist Majority Steven Gey; NARAL Pro-Choice Maria Vullo; Religious Coalition Reproductive Choice Deanne Ottaviano David Pfeffer; Abner Mikva Molly Boast. Lawyers' Civil Rights Under Law Bankoff, Foreman, Sarah Crawford, Dennis Courtland Hayes; Unborn Children Ernest; Emily Lyons Pamela Sumners; 47 Members Jon Eisenberg. Reed Hopper Pacific

Category: 4