## Facts

- Abortion-rights organizations and several clinics obtained a revised permanent injunction (1989) barring Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, and persons acting in concert from trespassing on, blocking, or obstructing access to specified clinics, including by surrounding persons seeking entry or exit.
- In summer 1993, Operation Rescue National publicized and raised funds for a multi-city protest campaign (“Cities of Refuge”), including events in Philadelphia.
- On July 9, 1993, more than 100 protesters effectively blocked entrances to the Reproductive Health and Counseling Center (RHCC), preventing patients and staff from entering or leaving.
- Two local activists, Joseph Roach and Robert Lewis, were present at RHCC, wore red armbands identifying them as “marshals,” and had actual notice of the 1989 injunction.
- Witnesses described Roach (including via bullhorn) and Lewis as directing and supervising protesters during the blockade, though neither was shown to have personally sat in front of doors or physically linked arms to block entry.
- Plaintiffs moved to hold Operation Rescue, Terry, Roach, and Lewis in civil contempt for violating the injunction; the district court denied the motion for lack of clear and convincing proof tying each alleged contemnor to a violation.
- Plaintiffs appealed the denial of contempt.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold Operation Rescue and Randall Terry in civil contempt for the July 9, 1993 RHCC blockade connected to the “Cities of Refuge” campaign.
2. Whether the district court erred in refusing to hold Joseph Roach and Robert Lewis in civil contempt given their marshal roles and direction of protesters during the RHCC blockade.

## Decision

- Affirmed the denial of contempt as to Operation Rescue and Randall Terry because the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show they directed, supervised, or controlled the specific RHCC blockade.
- Reversed the denial of contempt as to Joseph Roach and Robert Lewis because the district court misapplied the clear-and-convincing standard to uncontradicted evidence of their leadership and direction at a time when access was being obstructed.
- Remanded for entry of appropriate contempt findings and remedies against Roach and Lewis consistent with the injunction.

## Legal Principles

- Civil contempt requires clear and convincing proof of (1) a valid court order, (2) knowledge of the order by the alleged contemnor, and (3) disobedience of the order.
- A person may violate an injunction’s ban on “blocking or obstructing” access by coordinating, directing, or supervising others who perform the physical obstruction, when the person has notice of the order and participates in the prohibited conduct.
- Clear and convincing evidence can be met through circumstantial and inferential proof when it clearly establishes knowledge and participation; it does not require direct proof that the contemnor personally performed every physical act.
- Organizational or leader liability for contempt requires a sufficiently direct evidentiary connection between the organization/leader and the specific enjoined conduct; broad advocacy or campaign promotion, without more, may be insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld the district court’s refusal to hold Operation Rescue and its national leader in contempt because the record did not clearly connect them to the specific clinic blockade, but it required contempt findings against local marshals who knowingly directed and supervised protesters while access to a protected clinic was obstructed.


Roe v. Operation Rescue, 54 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 1995)