National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue
| Decision Date | 19 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 90-2606,90-2607 and 90-2651,s. 90-2606 |
| Citation | 914 F.2d 582 |
| Parties | NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN; 51st State National Organization for Women; Maryland National Organization for Women; Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC, Inc.; Commonwealth Women's Clinic; Nova Women's Medical Center; Prince William Women's Clinic; Gynecare Associates; Metro Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Annandale Women's Center; Virginia National Organization for Women; Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and National Abortion Federation; Capitol Women's Center, Inc.; Hillcrest Women's Surgi-Center; Metropolitan Family Planning Institute, Plaintiffs, v. OPERATION RESCUE; Randall Terry; Patrick Mahoney; Clifford Gannett; Michael McMonagle; Michael Bray; Jayne Bray, Defendants-Appellants, and Project Rescue; the D.C. Project; Veterans Campaign for Life, Defendants (Two Cases). NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN; 51st State National Organization for Women; Maryland National Organization for Women; Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC, Inc.; Commonwealth Women's Clinic; Capitol Women's Center, Inc.; Nova Women's Medical Center; Prince William Women's Clinic; Gynecare Associates; Metro Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Annandale Women's Center; Hillcrest Women's Surgi-Center; Metropolitan Family Planning Institute; Virginia National Organization for Women; Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and National Abortion Federation, Plaintiff, v. OPERATION RESCUE; Randall Terry; Patrick Mahoney; Clifford Gannett; Michael McMonagle; Michael Bray; Jayne Bray, Defendants-Appellees, and Project Rescue; the D.C. Project; Veterans Campaign for Life, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Jay Alan Sekulow, Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Washington, D.C., argued (Douglas W. Davis, James M. Henderson, Sr., Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Washington, D.C.; Thomas Patrick Monaghan, C. Peter Thomas S. Cornell, and Walter M. Weber, Free Speech Advocates, New Hope, Ky., on brief), for defendants-appellants.
John H. Schafer, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., argued (Laurence J. Eisenstein, Richard H. Seamon, Pamela S. Passman, Covington & Burling; and Sarah E. Burns, and Alison Wetherfield, Now Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Washington, D.C., on brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before CHAPMAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
This is an appeal of a permanent injunction entered against six individuals and Operation Rescue, an unincorporated association whose members oppose abortion and its legalization. The district court enjoined them, inter alia, from "trespassing on, blockading, impeding or obstructing access to or egress from" the premises of plaintiffs, facilities that provide abortions or abortion counseling. The court held that defendants' blockading of abortion facilities infringed the right to travel of women seeking to obtain abortions at clinics in the Washington metropolitan area, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3), and certain of their rights under state law. Nat'l Org. For Women (NOW) v. Operation Rescue, 726 F.Supp. 1483 (E.D.Va.1989). Operation Rescue and the six individual defendants appeal. NOW cross-appeals, along with nine abortion facilities and four other organizational plaintiffs. We reject both appeals and affirm the judgment of the district court.
Plaintiffs are nine clinics in the Washington metropolitan area and Northern Virginia that provide various abortion-related services, and five organizations that seek to preserve a woman's right to obtain an abortion. Defendant Operation Rescue is an organization whose purpose is to prevent abortions and to oppose their legalization. One of the ways Operation Rescue seeks to effectuate these goals is to stage "rescue" demonstrations at abortion facilities. At these demonstrations, the participants "intentionally trespass on the clinic's premises for the purpose of blockading the clinic's entrances and exits, thereby effectively closing the clinic" and " 'rescu[ing]' ... fetuses scheduled for abortion." 726 F.Supp. at 1487. The individual defendants are persons who oppose abortion and its legalization, and who seek to advance their views in part by "planning, organizing and participating in 'rescue' demonstrations under the banner and auspices of Operation Rescue." Id. at 1488.
On November 8, 1989, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to enjoin defendants from, among other things, physically impeding access to certain facilities that offer abortion and related services. The impetus for this action was defendants' alleged plans for meetings, rallies, and "rescue" demonstrations on November 10-12 and 18-20, 1989 in the Washington metropolitan area. No rescue activities took place in Northern Virginia during that period. However, clinics in Maryland and the District of Columbia were closed due to demonstrations on those dates.
The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order after an expedited hearing on November 8-9, 1989. The trial of the action on the merits and the hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction were consolidated and scheduled to be heard on November 16, 1989. After a two day trial in which plaintiffs presented testimony from nine witnesses and defendants elected to present no evidence, the district court granted the request for a permanent injunction. The court enjoined defendants from "trespassing on, blockading, impeding or obstructing access to or egress from the [listed] premises." Id. at 1497. The court refused on First Amendment grounds to extend the injunction to enjoin rescue activities that tend to "intimidate, harass or disturb patients or potential patients." Id.
The district court concluded that defendants' activities operated to deny to women seeking abortions and abortion-related services the right to travel interstate in search of medical services in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3). The court noted that the elements of a cause of action under Sec. 1985(3) are:
"(i) conspiracy; (ii) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; (iii) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (iv) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States."
Id. at 1492 (quoting Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102-03, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798-99, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971)). The court held that defendants had violated Sec. 1985(3) by entering into a conspiracy to deprive women, whom it found to be a protected class within the meaning of Sec. 1985(3), of their constitutional right to travel. It reasoned, citing Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), that the rescue demonstrations interfere with the right to travel because substantial numbers of women seeking the services of clinics in the Washington metropolitan area travel interstate to obtain these services.
The court further found that permanent injunctive relief was appropriate because: (i) there was no adequate remedy at law; (ii) the balance of equities favored plaintiffs; and (iii) the public interest was served by granting the injunction. The court found that women...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Miller
...F.3d 412, 427 (2d Cir.1995) (religion); Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 449 (1st Cir.1995) (women); Nat'l Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582, 585 (4th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (gender), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 113 S......
-
Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla.
...that merit heightened scrutiny under Equal Protection Clause analysis, of which gender is one."); National Org. For Women v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582, 585 (4th Cir.1990) (collecting circuit cases), rev'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clin......
-
Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Operation Rescue
...this issue have agreed and, accordingly, have found gender discrimination actionable under § 1985(3). See, e.g., NOW v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582, 585 (4th Cir.1990), cert. granted sub nom. Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1070, 112 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1991)......
-
Sabelko v. City of Phoenix
...choose to revise the Ordinance in question within the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution. See National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582 (4th Cir.1990) (upholding injunction prohibiting pro-life organization and its members from trespassing on, blockading, impe......
-
"face"-ing Rico: a Remedy for Antiabortion Violence?
...advocating unlawful methods of abortion clinic interference). 38. NOW v. Operation Rescue, 726 F. Supp. 1483, 1488 (E.D. Va. 1989), ajffd, 914 F.2d 582 (4th Cir. 1990), rev'd in part on other grounds, vacated in part, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 113 S. Ct. 753 39. NOW v. Schei......
-
A Thirteenth Amendment defense of the Violence Against Women Act.
...("[W]e find the conclusion inescapable that women constitute a cognizable class under [sections] 1985(3)."); NOW v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582, 585 (4th Cir. 1990) (affirming the district court's judgment that women are a protected class within the meaning of [sections] 1985(3)), rev'd ......