Appellate Court Slashes Punitive Damage Award Against Anti-Abortion Website

An appellate court has dramatically reduced the punitive damages award against anti-abortionists who maintained the Nuremberg Files website.

The Ninth Circuit found that the original award of $108.5 million to doctors named on the site was beyond the constitutional limit and remitted damages to around $5 million. The defendants were found in 1999 to be in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The jury awarded both actual and punitive damages against the defendants. The actual damages varied by defendant. The original verdict was upheld in an earlier appeal and the only question before the court was the level of punitive damages.

The American Coalition of Live Activists and the other defendants argued that the original $109 million punitive award was “preposterous.” The defendants had posted the names, photographs and addresses of doctors who performed abortions on the website. The defendants contended the website was political speech since there was no actual threat of serious injury to the doctors.

“In sum, while ACLA justifies its conduct as political speech that cannot be reprehensible, we have already held that FACE prohibits the specific conduct in which it chose to engage and that true threats of the sort ACLA made in order to intimidate physicians are not protected under the First Amendment. As true threats of violence were made with the intent to intimidate, ACLA’s conduct is on the high side of reprehensibility,” the court wrote.

However, the appellate court found the punitive damages should have been assessed against each defendant individually and a ratio of the actual damages to punitive damages used to determine reasonableness. After reviewing the cases involving punitive damages, the court found that ratios in the single digits would be appropriate. “We agree with the district court that ACLA’s conduct is particularly reprehensible. ACLA made no bones about its intent to intimidate those in the reproductive health services community by true threats of serious injury or death. In these circumstances, a substantial award of punitive damages in relation to the actual harm caused will reasonably serve the interests of punishment and deterrence. Our constitutional sensibilities are not offended by a 9 to 1 ratio,” the opinion stated.

Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. et al v. American Coalition of Life Activists et al, Ninth Circuit No. 04-35214, September 6, 2005.