(SWHO),(105) filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the named members of PLAN(106) (hereinafter "protesters") and Vital-Med Laboratories.(107) The suit alleged that the protesters, through their actions, "restrained trade in violation of section one of the Sherman [Antitrust] Act."(108) In addition, DWHO anD SWHO(109) alleged that the protesters "were members of a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity"(110) in violation of [sections][sections] 1962(a),(111) 1962(c),(112) and 1962(d)(113) of RICO.
was intended to prevent business competitors from making restraining arrangements for their own economic advantage."(128) Thus, the court held that, because the "[d]efendants [were] not involved in business, and [had] no ability to concentrate economic power," the Sherman Act did not apply to and did not prohibit the activities alleged by NOW, DWHO, and SWHO.(129)
After finding that RICO requires an economic motive, the court of appeals rejected petitioners' arguments that the increased costs to the clinics as a result of the protesters' actions satisfied the economic requirement.(146) The court "refuse[d] to equate [economic] effect with the economic motive required."(147) The court also found that the contributions PLAN received incidentally from its actions did not show that PLAN had an economic motive.(148) Moreover, the court of appeals concurred with the district court's disposition of the [sections][sections] 1962(a) and (d) RICO claims.(149) NOW, DWHO, and SWHO, appealed.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded that RICO does not require proof that "the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were motivated by an economic purpose."(152) The majority found that neither the language of RICO nor its legislative history requires an economic motive.(153) Therefore, the Court concluded that DWHO and SWHO may maintain their RICO claims if the protesters "conducted the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity."(154)
Cindi Lamb, one of the pioneer
swho founded of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), has joined the National Beer Wholesalers' Association as an adviser for the organization's alcohol education programs.