October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1244
Can private groups sue for injunctions under RICO without proving robbery?
Clinic owners and anti-abortion activists dispute whether the Hobbs Act allows private parties to seek court orders against protest activities.
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. Untereiner argued the Court previously ended the case by reversing the liability judgment and vacating the injunction.
Mr. Chemerinsky argued the Seventh Circuit acted correctly by sending the case back to the district court.
Ms. Blatt stated the United States position that the Hobbs Act requires intended robbery or extortion.
Ms. Blatt argued private parties cannot obtain injunctive relief under RICO.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 1-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 1-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the Hobbs Act and RICO. the sides that brought the case argue the law requires proof of robbery. the opposing sides argue the law covers broader coercive conduct. The United States supports the sides that brought the case' narrow reading.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 1-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 1-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 30, 2005.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 43-1
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the court to end the case by reversing the liability judgment and vacating the injunction.
the opposing sides want the court to allow the district court to decide if the injunction can remain based on specific violence counts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 1-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 1-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the Hobbs Act requires an intended robbery or extortion, which private parties cannot prove under RICO.
the opposing sides argue the Seventh Circuit acted correctly by remanding the case to determine if the injunction could remain based on physical violence counts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 1-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 1-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if the Court resolved the statutory construction issue previously.
Justice Scalia asked if plausible statutory readings determine meaning and how the lower court could have rendered judgment without resolving the issue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
Why it matters
This dispute defines whether private parties can use federal racketeering laws to stop protests. It determines if the Hobbs Act requires proof of robbery or if it covers broader coercive conduct. The outcome shapes the legal tools available for resolving conflicts between businesses and protest groups.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 1-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 1-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
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 10, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
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 19, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 1-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 1-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 1-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 1-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-37
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.