October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1118
Does forcing a business to stop operating count as extortion under federal law?
Clinic owners claim protesters forced them to close. Protesters say they only exercised free speech rights.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Englert argued that the clinic owners should win if the Court agrees with their legal theory.
Ms. Clayton argued that the differences between antitrust and extortion laws support the protesters' position.
Mr. Olson argued that surrendering control of a business due to force violates federal extortion law.
Mr. Englert noted that the protesters objected to reading the word obtain out of the statute.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the limits of federal extortion laws. It asks if a business loses property rights when it stops operating due to protest pressure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
What each side wants
Clinic owners want the jury verdict overturned and a win for the protesters.
Protesters want the jury verdict to stand and keep their legal claims alive.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
What each side says
Clinic owners argue that forcing a business to stop operating is a violation of federal extortion law.
Protesters argue that antitrust laws allow private lawsuits, but extortion laws do not.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked the clinic owners to begin their argument.
Justice Stevens asked the protesters to begin their argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
Why it matters
This case defines when protest pressure becomes illegal extortion. It sets the boundary between lawful speech and criminal coercion for businesses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 7-29 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 7-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 7-59 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 7-59
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.