Roe v. Operation Rescue
| Citation | 919 F.2d 857 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | N,Nos. 89-1011,No. 89-1428,No. 89-1471,89-1428 and 89-1471,No. 89-1011,J,89-1011,89-1428,89-1471,s. 89-1011 |
| Parties | ROE, Jane, Moe, Mary, National Abortion Rights Action League of Pennsylvania, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women, Reproductive Health and Counseling Center, Women's Suburban Clinic, Allentown Women's Center, Northeast Women's Center, Women's Medical Services, Kline, Dr. Allen v. OPERATION RESCUE, Terry, Randall, Lisant, Reverend James P., Pro Life Nonviolent Action Project of Bronx, N.Y., Herlihy, Thomas, Pro-Life Nonviolent Action Project of Philadelphia, McMonagle, Michael, Chester County Citizens Concerned About Life, O'Brien, John J., Council for the Sanctity of Human Life, Foreman, Joseph, Advocates for Life, Burnett, Andrew, American Life League, Brown, Judie, Direct Action Committee, Hoffer, Kathy, Hoffer, Craig, Life and Family Center, Schulberg, Andrew, Pro Life Action League, Scheidler, Joseph, Pro Life Direct Action League, Ryan, John, Omaha Christian Action Council, Hartford, Denny, Pro Life Nonviolent Action Project of Washington, D.C., O'Keefe, John Cavanaugh, Smith(s), John and Smith(s) Jane, the Last Two Being Fictitious Names, the Real Names of Said Defendants Being Presently Unknown to Plaintiffs, Said Fictitious Names Being Intended to Designate Organizations or Persons Who are Members of Defendant Organizations, and Others Acting in Concert with Any of the Defendants Who are Engaging in, or Intend to Engage in, the Conduct Complained of Herein, Randall Terry, Michael McMonagle, Joseph Foreman, Tina Krail and Operation Rescue, Appellants inoseph Foreman, Randall Terry, Operation Rescue, Michael McMonagle and Tina Krail, Appellants inational Abortion Rights Action League of Pennsylvania, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania; Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women, Reproductive Health and Counseling Center, Women's Suburban Clinic, Allentown Women's Center, Northeast Women's Center, and Cherry Hill Women's Center, Appellants in |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
J. Michael Considine, Jr. (argued), The Rutherford Institute of Pennsylvania, West Chester, Pa., for appellants/cross appellees Joseph Foreman, Operation Rescue and Council for Sanctity of Human Life.
William A. Bonner (argued), The Rutherford Institute of Pennsylvania, Media, Pa., for appellants/cross appellees Randall Terry and Operation Rescue.
Joseph F. Wusinich, III (argued), Wusinich & Brogan, West Chester, Pa., for appellant/cross appellee Michael J. McMonagle.
Francis J. Manion, Mt. Holly, N.J., for appellant/cross appellee Tina Krail.
Mark L. Tunnell, West Chester, Pa., for appellants/cross appellees Randall Terry and Operation Rescue.
Nancy J. Bregstein (argued), Mary A. McLaughlin, Debra L. Subar, Lori Lowenthal Stern, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees/cross appellants Northeast Women's Center, Women's Suburban Clinic and Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women.
Susan Cary Nicholas, Linda J. Wharton, Women's Law Project, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees/cross appellants Nat. Abortion Rights Action League of Pa., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women, Reproductive Health and Counseling Center, Women's Suburban Clinic, Allentown Women's Center, Northeast Women's Center, Women's Medical Services and Dr. Allen Kline.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, Chief Judge, BECKER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by defendant Operation Rescue, a group of organizations and individuals whose purpose, the district court found, is to "organize and coordinate disruptions of abortion and family planning facilities," and by a number of individual defendants associated with Operation Rescue. These defendants appeal from the district court's grant of a permanent injunction preventing them from demonstrating in front of and disrupting activities at various women's health facilities in the Philadelphia area. They also appeal from the district court's order holding them and a number of other anti-abortion protesters in civil contempt for violating a temporary restraining order and requiring them to pay compensatory damages to those plaintiff-clinics that were subjected to unlawful protests. In addition, plaintiffs have filed a cross-appeal in which they challenge the district court's dismissal of certain plaintiffs for lack of standing and the court's holding that it is powerless to award compensatory damages to non-party clinics.
The parties have briefed a considerable number of issues, including: (1) whether the dismissed plaintiffs have standing; (2) whether the plaintiffs have met the requirements of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) by establishing--(a) sufficient class-based animus, (b) violation of their constitutional rights to abortion and/or travel, and (c) sufficient government involvement to establish an infringement of the abortion right; and (3) whether a non-party (one of the clinics) is entitled to civil contempt damages. The standing and contempt questions, although requiring some discussion, are relatively straightforward. We have little difficulty concluding that the dismissed plaintiffs have standing to sue and that the district court correctly found itself unable to award contempt damages to a non-party--i.e., Cherry Hill Women's Center. By contrast, the Sec. 1985(3) issues are considerably more complex.
We need not grapple with these federal issues here, however, because we are satisfied that the injunction must be affirmed on state-law grounds of trespass and intentional interference with contractual relations, regardless of our ultimate resolution of the Sec. 1985(3) questions. When the district court granted the injunction, it specifically stated that each of plaintiffs' three causes of action--their Sec. 1985(3) claim and their two state-law claims--was by itself sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. Defendants have not appealed the court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' two state-law claims. Considering the complexity of the federal issue and the unchallenged bases for upholding the permanent injunction, we decline to issue an ambitious advisory opinion, and we will therefore affirm the order granting the injunction.
In the early summer of 1988, Operation Rescue publicly announced plans to close down clinics that offer abortions in the Philadelphia area by staging massive demonstrations and blockades at these facilities during the week of July 4. These demonstrations, described below, constituted one phase of a well-orchestrated campaign to disrupt and shut down abortion clinics throughout the nation. Operation Rescue's plans for Philadelphia involved a rally on July 4 and "rescue missions"--i.e., blockades and demonstrations--at abortion clinics on July 5 and 6. The organization, however, did not identify in advance which Philadelphia area clinics it intended to target.
The success of Operation Rescue's blockades elsewhere, particularly in New York City, and its public boasts about the prospective Philadelphia demonstrations led eleven plaintiffs to file a complaint in the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 29, 1988, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the threatened protests, as well as money damages. 1 The original eleven plaintiffs consisted of seven abortion and family planning clinics; 2 the National Abortion Rights Action League of Pennsylvania ("NARAL/PA"), the local chapter of a national organization representing people who wish to keep abortion legal; Jane Roe and Mary Moe, two pregnant women for whom abortions had been scheduled during the week of July 4; and Dr. Allen Kline, a physician who regularly performs abortions in Philadelphia. 3 The thirty named defendants included Operation Rescue; Randall Terry, the National Director and Organizer of Operation Rescue; Joseph Foreman, the Regional Director of Operation Rescue; and Michael McMonagle, the Executive Director of Pro-Life Coalition of Southeastern Pennsylvania. 4
Plaintiffs' complaint alleged two federal causes of action, one under the federal civil rights statute prohibiting conspiracies to deprive others of their constitutional rights, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3), and the other under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c). The complaint also set forth four pendent, state-law claims: (1) tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relations; (2) trespass; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) false imprisonment. Along with the complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and for a preliminary injunction to ensure that defendants' planned activities for the week of July 4 did not interfere with their rights to obtain and provide abortions.
After a hearing on June 30, 1988, the district court issued a TRO, enjoining the defendants and others acting in concert with them from trespassing on, blocking entrances at, or physically abusing or harassing persons working or obtaining services at abortion facilities in the metropolitan Philadelphia area from July 4 to 9. The court stated:
The explicit purpose of [defendants'] protests, as stated in the promotional literature regarding the event and as demonstrated in recent protests by defendants, is to block access to clinics or doctors' offices where abortions are performed. There is a strong likelihood that plaintiffs, including women scheduled for abortion procedures at various clinics in Philadelphia during the week of July 4, 1988, will suffer both physical and emotional harm if they cannot gain access to the various abortion facilities in this City for their scheduled appointments.
Five days later, on July 5, the court modified its TRO to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 03-4433 (JCL).
...is no need for individual member participation where, as here, only injunctive and declaratory relief is sought. Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 865-66 (3d Cir.1990); see also Hospital Council of Western Pa. v. City of Pittsburgh, 949 F.2d 83, 89 (3d Cir.1991) (noting that the Suprem......
-
Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. v. Rumsfeld, CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-4433 (JCL) (D. N.J. 11/5/2003)
...is no need for individual member participation where, as here, only injunctive and declaratory relief is sought. Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 865-66 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Hospital Council of Western Pa. v. City of Pittsburgh, 949 F.2d 83, 89 (3d Cir. 1991) (noting that the Supr......
-
Clark Const. Co., Inc. v. Pena
...no adequate legal remedy;6 (2) the threatened injury is real, not imagined; and (3) no equitable defenses exist. Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 867 n. 8 (3d Cir.1990) (citations A. Inadequate Legal Remedy Here, the court finds that Clark Construction lacks an adequate remedy at law.......
-
Sisneros v. Nix
...relied on Rule 65(d) in civil rights cases to sanction non-parties for violation of an injunction. See, e.g., Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 872 (3d Cir.1990) (non-party found in contempt for knowingly violating TRO enjoining parties from interfering with abortion clinic activities)......
-
Trials
...7 (1st Cir. 2016) (criminal contempt proceeding, unlike civil, is “separate and independent proceeding at law”); Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857, 869 (3d Cir. 1990) (criminal contempt actions “separate from actions that spawned them”) (quoting Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers ......