## Facts

- Women seeking reproductive health services and clinic personnel/owners sued individuals and groups that organized anti-abortion demonstrations at clinics in Puerto Rico.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants’ actions went beyond peaceful protest and included clinic blockades, intimidation, property damage, and physical interference with access.
- The conduct included multiple coordinated demonstrations over roughly three months, culminating in a major protest on January 8, 1993.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to stop alleged violent and obstructive conduct.
- Plaintiffs also pursued civil damages theories under RICO (including conspiracy) and under the hindrance clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), alleging a conspiracy that impaired authorities’ ability to secure women’s access to abortion services.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on RICO claims, including injury to “business or property,” existence of an enterprise, and a “pattern of racketeering activity” with continuity.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment under the § 1985(3) hindrance clause by showing a conspiracy formed for the purpose of preventing or hindering authorities from securing equal protection, as applied to access to abortion services.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment for defendants and remanded.
- On RICO, the court held that at least some plaintiffs could potentially satisfy RICO standing if they proved concrete injury to business or property (e.g., lost wages, travel costs, or specific property damage) attributable to predicate acts.
- The court concluded the record, viewed favorably to plaintiffs, could support aspects of enterprise/pattern requirements where repeated coordinated actions and evidence of planned continuation could show continuity.
- On the § 1985(3) hindrance claim, the court rejected the district court’s overly restrictive approach to “purpose,” holding that conduct aimed at obstructing authorities’ ability to protect clinic access could fall within the clause even if defendants’ ultimate objective was to stop abortions.

## Legal Principles

- RICO standing requires proof of injury to “business or property”; plaintiffs are not categorically excluded based on their status as clinic patients or advocates, but must show compensable, concrete losses.
- For RICO “pattern,” related acts plus a threat of continued criminal conduct may establish continuity; repeated coordinated clinic disruptions coupled with evidence of planned repetition can satisfy that element at summary judgment.
- The § 1985(3) hindrance clause can reach conspiracies that impair law enforcement’s ability to secure equal protection; intent and purpose may be inferred from organized conduct that predictably obstructs official protection.
- Summary judgment is improper where record evidence permits reasonable findings on disputed elements such as continuity under RICO and purpose to hinder authorities under § 1985(3).

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that portions of the RICO and § 1985(3) hindrance-clause claims were supported by sufficient record evidence to proceed, reversing the district court’s blanket dismissal and remanding for further proceedings while leaving some aspects of the judgment intact.


Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428 (1st Cir. 1995)