Supreme Court Brief Due September 2nd

Our opening brief in the RICO case is due September 2^nd.  This past week I assembled senior research teams in both our Washington, DC, offices and our offices at Regent University in Virginia in order to develop a thorough legal analysis as to why the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) should not be applied to pro-life protests.  We are focusing on two arguments this time.  First, the statute itself does not authorize the kind of injunctive relief that the district court put in place.  This injunction provided for a nationwide prohibition of pro-life activities around abortion clinics.  Secondly, there is no elation of the substantive aspects of RICO since the activities of the pro-life demonstrators did not involve extortion or robbery.  These two acts are the predicates for RICO violations. 

 

Although we were successful before the Supreme Court two years ago with an 8-1 decision in our favor, the Seventh Circuit kept the injunction in place.  We asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and they accepted it.  This is the third time this case is before the Supreme Court of the United States.  As I said, our opening brief is due September 2^nd.  We will have a follow-up brief due toward the end of October.  We will also have to file what is called a joint appendix, which is a lengthy documentation of significant exhibits from the trial court.  The joint appendix will also be due in early September.  Oral argument is scheduled for November 30^th.  Interestingly, the parental notification case will be argued the very same day. 

 

Concerning our case involving Valley Community College and the student who was given a failing grade because of her use of the word God in a paper, we are awaiting a final resolution from the lawyers for Valley Community College.  They had made a proposal which is being reviewed.  One aspect of the proposal would be to have our clients paper re-reviewed by a separate professor.  The community college has acknowledged that it is inappropriate to prohibit the use of the word God in a term paper.  We expect a resolution of this case in the next few days. 

 

Concerning Judge John Roberts, we anticipate this week we will see some new attacks on Judge Robertss judicial philosophy.  However, with NARAL pulling its ad after tremendous pressure, I think the interest groups, at least for the time being, will be very cautious as to what they put up in the form of advertisements.  One of the great things about our coordinated efforts was the ability to respond quickly to the allegations concerning the Bray case and Judge Roberts.  This was particularly so because I served as counsel in the Bray case and was able to not only inform our members and listening audience through radio and television, but also other coalition groups that were working on behalf of Roberts nomination.  We will continue to work aggressively to ensure a smooth confirmation. 

 

I am also happy to report that on September 7^th, we will air a TV special on TBN and all of its affiliates concerning the judicial confirmation.  Our guests will include members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others intimately familiar with the process. 

 

Please refer to our In the News section for updates on the work of the ACLJ at www.aclj.org.  On a final note, if you are not receiving the email News Alerts of the ACLJ, I encourage you to do so.  Simply click here to sign up under EMAIL SIGNUP (at the top right corner) to receive up-to-date information as it develops.