Whether RICO claims should be dismissed where the plaintiffs suffered no compensable injury

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondent Planned Parenthood sued Petitioners over their use of undercover journalism techniques to investigate Planned Parenthood’s involvement in selling fetal tissue. With the assistance of the lower courts, Planned Parenthood spun Petitioners’ investigative project into a federal racketeering conspiracy and a judgment. The damages were not compensation for any injury or loss, but solely reimbursement for security enhancements. Prior to the decision below, no reported case had allowed an award of “compensatory damages” under RICO to an indisputably uninjured plaintiff for the purpose of improving the plaintiffs position. “But the context here is abortion.” Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring and dissenting). The lower courts did not hesitate to ignore “uncontroversial legal doctrines” concerning compensatory damages where the plaintiffs were abortion providers and the defendants were abortion opponents who made them look bad by releasing videos of shockingly frank conversations with abortion doctors. The questions presented are: 1. Whether RICO claims should be dismissed where the plaintiffs suffered no compensable injury. 2. Whether the lower courts erred in affirming an award of damages under RICO to reimburse Respondents for their voluntary expenses to avert a possible future recurrence of tortious conduct.