On The Front Lines
Rutherford Attorneys Weigh in on 'Nuremberg Files' case, Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Affirm Right of Pro-Life Activists to Engage in Non-Violent Speech
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, along with Professor Edward Gaffney, Jr., of Valparaiso University School of Law, have filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of the First Amendment right of a group of pro-life protesters to engage in speech that advocates non-violent political action in American Coalition of Life Activists v. Planned Parenthood. The Catholic Peace Fellowship, Catholic Worker House and the Peter Maurin Center also signed onto the brief, which urges the Court to declare that a $4.7 million judgment levied against a group of pro-life protesters for publishing the names and addresses of 12 abortion doctors online and on "wanted" style posters infringes on the protesters' constitutional right to free speech.
"Speech in our republic must remain free not only for popular speakers, but also for the unpopular and the dissidents," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "This case illustrates a disconcerting practice being carried out in our judicial system right now--namely, the practice of 'guilt by contextualization,' rather than guilt by association. What we are seeing is pro-life activists being lumped into the same category as individuals who carry out violent acts against abortion clinics and abortion doctors. As a result, pro-life activists are being subjected to crippling financial penalties and penalized for engaging in speech that may advocate non-violent political action."
In 1995, Planned Parenthood filed suit in federal court against the American Coalition of Life Activists and several other pro-life activists for distributing "wanted" style posters that published the names and address of specific abortion providers. The information was later made available on a Nuremberg Files website, which publishes personal information about abortion providers. The lawsuit charged that the pro-life protesters' actions violated two federal laws, the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act (FACE) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). In 1999, an Oregon district court ruled against the protesters and imposed $120 million dollars in damages. The case worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was remanded back to the district court with instructions to reconsider the monetary award in light of the Court's ruling in Scheidler v. Now, which held that anti-abortion protests are not covered by RICO. Once again, the district court found the $120 million judgment to be proper. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the award to $4.7 million while letting stand the judgment against ACLA for exercising its First Amendment rights. In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, Institute attorneys argue in defense of ACLA's fundamental First Amendment right to express their opposition to abortion. The Institute's brief cites the dissenting Ninth Circuit opinion of Judge Kozinski, who declared: "While today it is abortion protesters who are singled out for punitive treatment, the precedent set by this court--the broad and uncritical deference to the judgment of the jury--will haunt dissidents of all political stripes for many years to come."
