The Supreme Court last week ruled 8-1 in Scheidler v. The National Organization for Women that federal extortion and racketeering laws, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, had been improperly applied in punishing the attempts of antiabortion protesters to impede the business of abortion clinics. Summarized below are some editorials addressing the court's decision:

• Birmingham News: The Supreme Court "made the right call in refusing to allow Draconian federal laws aimed at organized crime to be used instead against abortion protestors," a Birmingham News editorial says, adding that RICO should not be used "as a hammer against those who are engaged in acts of civil protest." The editorial concludes, "This ruling makes it clear that citizen activists can create a racket without facing excessive punishment as racketeers" (Birmingham News, 3/3).
  
• Chicago Tribune: "No one should construe the ruling as condoning violence or threats of violence to close abortion clinics," a Tribune editorial states, adding that the case "was more about free speech than abortion." The editorial concludes, "No matter where they stand individually on the divisive issue of abortion, all Americans should applaud" the court's decision because it prohibits "those who oppose protests" from "overreach[ing], using laws that were designed for one purpose [and] twist[ing them] in a way that threatens a basic American right" (Chicago Tribune, 2/27).
  
• Cleveland Plain Dealer: The Supreme Court's decision "put a long-overdue crimp in the growing misuse of ... RICO," a Plain Dealer editorial says, adding that the court acted in the "best traditions of a nation committed to the fullest possible freedom of speech." The editorial concludes that the antiabortion protestors and others engaging in civil disobedience are "not gangsters" but are "Americans exercising their cardinal birthright" (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/28).
  
• Daily Oklahoman: The court's decision means that "antiabortion groups can resume legitimate, nonviolent protests without fear of prosecution under laws normally targeted at mobsters, corrupt union bosses and the like. Which is as it should be," according to a Daily Oklahoman editorial (Daily Oklahoman, 3/3).
  
• Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel: At a time when "many Americans fear an erosion of civil rights" due to the "plethora" of laws introduced after Sept. 11, 2001, "misusing RICO laws as a way to punish political and social organizations could be more damaging than helpful," a Sun-Sentinel editorial says. "It's best to let" RICO laws serve to "combat organized crime and financial misdeed," the editorial concludes (Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 3/3).
  
• Louisville Courier-Journal: The court's "nearly unanimous" decision is "rare in these highly partisan times" and "may surprise some," but the ruling should not come as a surprise because the case was about the use of a law to "silence protestors," not about abortion rights, a Courier-Journal editorial says. The editorial concludes that criminal statutes already "provide ample recourse" for the illegal conduct of antiabortion protestors, "all the while protect[ing] citizens with dissenting views from being charged with conspiracy" (Louisville Courier-Journal, 3/1).
  
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "A proliferation of RICO lawsuits against protesters could deny them the financial resources necessary to spread their message even in legal ways," which would negatively impact the ability of a group to exercise their right to free speech, a Post-Gazette editorial says. The court's ruling was therefore correct because it maintains the "delicate balance" between "punish[ing] criminal action without chilling political speech," the editorial concludes (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3/3).
  
• San Diego Union-Tribune: Because of the 1994 Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act, the Supreme Court's ruling will not result in "the sidewalks outside of abortion clinics" turning into "battlegrounds," a Union-Tribune editorial says. The decision was an "affirmation by the justices of the right to protest. And a rebuke to those who would misuse federal racketeering law to prevent individuals and groups from exercising that right" (San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/3).
  
• St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "[N]o woman should have to run the gauntlet of in-your-face protesters when she exercises her constitutional right to abortion," but there are other laws to prevent such activity, a Post-Dispatch editorial says. The Supreme Court "placed a sensible limit on the use" of RICO, thereby "preserv[ing] the breathing space for protest" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/27).
  
• Tampa Tribune: Under the plaintiffs' interpretation of RICO, it "could have been used against Martin Luther King" for his leadership of nonviolent demonstrations, rallies and boycotts in the 1960s, a Tribune editorial says, adding that, had this interpretation "been allowed to stand, RICO could have been employed to deter legitimate political protest." The editorial concludes that the Supreme Court "made the right decision" (Tampa Tribune, 3/1).
  
• Wall Street Journal: A Journal editorial calls the court's decision a victory for "the right of all Americans, left or right, to protest under the First Amendment." According to the editorial, the ruling also affects the abortion-related provision attached by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to a bipartisan bankruptcy reform measure, which seeks to limit the ability of antiabortion protesters to declare bankruptcy in order to avoid court-imposed fines. Although Schumer says that the language targets violent antiabortion activists, the "deliberately unspecific language" in the measure could allow the proposed law to be applied to "peaceful protests," the Journal says. By striking down the use of RICO laws to sue antiabortion protestors, the Supreme Court "indirectly" declares Schumer's proposed rider "unconstitutional," the editorial concludes (Wall Street Journal, 2/27).