## Facts

- Dr. Norman T. Tompkins, a Dallas OB/GYN who performed some abortions, and his wife sued anti-abortion activists and groups linked to a coordinated campaign called “Operation John the Baptist.”
- The campaign targeted abortion providers and sought to pressure them to stop by demanding a “repentance” statement; organizers planned to “expose” doctors who refused.
- Defendants repeatedly demonstrated at the Tompkinses’ home, Dr. Tompkins’s workplaces, and their church, including residential protests using bullhorns.
- Defendants engaged in surveillance of the Tompkins home (including parking outside to watch family activity) and followed Dr. and Mrs. Tompkins away from the home.
- Plaintiffs received harassing telephone calls and disturbing or threatening communications during a roughly ten-month campaign.
- Plaintiffs asserted Texas tort claims (including intrusion upon seclusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress), conspiracy-related theories, and federal RICO-based claims; removal to federal court followed.
- A jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs totaling about $8.5 million, including substantial damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress; the court had instructed the jury to consider the manner and effects of conduct, not the content of speech.
- Post-trial, defendants sought judgment as a matter of law (raising First Amendment and evidentiary challenges), plaintiffs sought judgment on the verdict, and plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether imposing tort liability and injunctive restrictions for defendants’ protest-related activities violated the First Amendment when the conduct was directed at plaintiffs’ home and daily life.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support jury findings of intrusion upon seclusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress as to specific defendants and organizations.
3. Whether a permanent injunction could be entered, and what limits were required so any restrictions addressed proven harms without barring lawful protest activity.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the verdict.
- The court upheld liability for intrusion upon seclusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendants whose proven participation involved sustained, targeted harassment (including residential picketing, surveillance, following, and harassing communications).
- The court set aside or reduced liability for certain defendants where the record did not sufficiently connect them to actionable conduct or did not support required tort elements.
- The court held that First Amendment protections did not bar liability for harassing conduct directed at the plaintiffs, distinguishing protected expression from intrusive or intimidating acts.
- The court granted a permanent injunction, modified to be narrowly tailored to the specific conduct found wrongful, restricting harassment-oriented conduct while permitting lawful, peaceful protest.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment protects advocacy and offensive viewpoints, but it does not immunize conduct that is harassing, intimidating, or otherwise actionable under generally applicable tort law.
- Under Texas law, intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion into another’s solitude or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; sustained residential targeting, surveillance, following, and harassing calls can satisfy this standard.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law requires extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress; a prolonged pattern of targeted harassment can meet this threshold.
- Post-verdict relief may be granted defendant-by-defendant where proof fails to establish participation, causation, or the required level of tortious conduct.
- Permanent injunctive relief restricting protest activity must be clear and narrowly tailored to proven harms; restrictions may address focused residential harassment and related conduct without broadly prohibiting lawful expressive activity.

## Conclusion

The court sustained significant portions of a jury verdict imposing tort liability for a coordinated, months-long campaign of targeted residential and personal harassment, rejected broad First Amendment defenses as to that conduct, and entered a modified permanent injunction limited to preventing specific intrusive and harassing tactics while allowing lawful protest.


Tompkins v. Cyr, 995 F. Supp. 664 (N.D. Tex. 1998)