Clarifying RICO's Pattern of Racketeering: Relationship and Continuity Suffice Without Multiple Schemes

Clarifying RICO's Pattern of Racketeering: Relationship and Continuity Suffice Without Multiple Schemes

Introduction

The United States Supreme Court case H. J. Inc. et al. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. et al., 492 U.S. 229 (1989), addressed pivotal issues concerning the interpretation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This case involved a civil action filed by customers against Northwestern Bell Telephone Company and associated parties, including members of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). The plaintiffs alleged that Northwestern Bell engaged in corrupt practices by making illicit payments to MPUC members to secure unfair rate approvals, thereby violating multiple provisions of RICO. The core legal question revolved around the definition and requirements of a "pattern of racketeering activity" under RICO.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that to establish a "pattern of racketeering activity" under RICO, it is insufficient to demonstrate merely multiple illegal schemes. Instead, plaintiffs must show that the predicate acts are related and that they either constitute or threaten ongoing criminal activity. The Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's rigid "multiple scheme" test, emphasizing a more flexible approach grounded in the statute's language and legislative history. Consequently, the Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision, allowing the plaintiffs' RICO claims to proceed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively reviewed precedents across various Circuits, highlighting a fractured landscape in interpreting RICO's pattern requirement. Key cases include:

  • SUPERIOR OIL CO. v. FULMER, 785 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1986) – Established the "multiple scheme" test.
  • Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) – Addressed the civil aspects of RICO and the pattern requirement.
  • RUSSELLO v. UNITED STATES, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) – Discussed the breadth of statutory terms.
  • United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir. 1989) – Rejected the multiple scheme requirement.
  • Various Circuit Court cases illustrating different interpretations of "pattern" without requiring multiple schemes.

The Supreme Court primarily navigated these precedents to emphasize the necessity of a coherent and flexible interpretation of "pattern," rejecting the rigidity of the multiple scheme approach.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by dissecting the statutory language of RICO, particularly focusing on 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), which mandates at least two acts of racketeering activity within a ten-year period to constitute a pattern. The Court observed that the term "pattern" inherently implies more than just the number of predicate acts; it necessitates a relationship and continuity among these acts. Legislative history was pivotal, revealing Congressional intent that "pattern" encompassed both relatedness and the potential for ongoing criminal activity.

The Court delineated "relationship" as per 18 U.S.C. § 3575(e) of the Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA), which RICO is part of, encompassing similarities in purposes, results, methods, or other distinguishing characteristics. "Continuity" was identified as the temporal aspect, requiring that the predicate acts either form a closed period of repeated conduct or establish a threat of future criminal activity.

Importantly, the Court rejected the notion that establishing multiple schemes was a prerequisite for demonstrating continuity. Instead, continuity could be shown through various means, such as the regularity of predicate acts in conducting ongoing legitimate business or as part of an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce.

Impact

This decision significantly impacts future RICO litigation by providing a clearer, more flexible framework for establishing a pattern of racketeering activity. By removing the rigid multiple scheme requirement, the Court opened the door for broader applications of RICO, allowing plaintiffs to succeed with a single, ongoing scheme provided it demonstrates the necessary relationship and continuity. This enhances the Act's efficacy in combating both organized and non-organized criminal enterprises embedded within legitimate businesses.

Additionally, the ruling underscores the importance of statutory interpretation grounded in legislative intent and textual analysis, discouraging lower courts from adopting overly restrictive tests not supported by the statute or its history.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pattern of Racketeering Activity

Under RICO, a "pattern" requires more than just multiple illegal actions. It necessitates that these actions are connected by some form of relationship and that they either constitute ongoing criminal behavior or pose a threat of such behavior continuing into the future. This means that the illegal activities must not be random or isolated but should show a coherent connection and persistence over time.

Relationship

"Relationship" between predicate acts refers to how these illegal activities are connected. This can be through similar objectives, methods, victims, or other distinguishing factors that link the actions together, indicating they are part of a coordinated effort.

Continuity

"Continuity" pertains to the temporal aspect of the racketeering activity. It requires that the illegal acts occur within a significant timeframe and either continue over a closed period or suggest that such conduct will persist in the future. This ensures that RICO targets sustained criminal operations rather than sporadic wrongdoing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in H. J. Inc. et al. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. et al. marks a pivotal clarification in RICO jurisprudence. By establishing that a pattern of racketeering activity requires both a relationship among predicate acts and continuity, without mandating the presence of multiple schemes, the Court has broadened the scope of RICO's applicability. This ensures that RICO remains a potent tool against a wide array of criminal enterprises, whether organized or embedded within legitimate businesses. The judgment emphasizes a balanced, textually grounded approach to statutory interpretation, promoting fairness and flexibility in the enforcement of anti-racketeering laws.

Case Details

Year: 1989
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

William Joseph BrennanAnthony McLeod KennedyAntonin ScaliaSandra Day O'Connor

Attorney(S)

Mark Reinhardt argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Susan Bedor and John Cochrane. John D. French argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were John F. Beukema, James L. Volling, and Stephen T. Refsell. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Fried, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, Richard G. Taranto, Joel M. Gershowitz, and Frank J. Marine; and for the States of Arizona et al. by Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General of Arizona, John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General of California, John J. Kelly, Chief State's Attorney of Connecticut, Jim Jones, Attorney General of Idaho, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, Hal Stratton, Attorney General of New Mexico, Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Jean A. Benoy, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General of Oregon, Jim Mattox, Attorney General of Texas, Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General of Washington, Charlie Brown, Attorney General of West Virginia, Donald J. Hanaway, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Joseph B. Meyer, Attorney General of Wyoming. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Robert Page 232 M. Weinberg and Laurence Gold; for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants by Philip A. Lacovara, Geoffrey F. Aronow, and Louis A. Craco; for the National Association of Manufacturers by Stephen M. Shapiro, Andrew L. Frey, Kenneth S. Geller, Mark I. Levy, Jan S. Amundson, and Quentin Riegel; and for the Washington Legal Foundation by Daniel J. Popeo, Paul D. Kamenar, and Vicki S. Marani. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States by Stephen A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, and Lynn M. Smelkinson; and for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice by Robert M. Hausman.

Comments