•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The purpose of this Note is to demonstrate that § 1985(3) is not applicable to Operation Rescue's blockade activities. Part II provides a brief survey of the history of § 1985(3) from its roots in the post-Civil War era to the 1950's. Part III examines the requirements for a § 1985(3) claim as delineated in the Griffin, Novotny, and Scott decisions. Part IV applies these requirements to the blockade controversy and argues that: (1) Gender-based animus should be accepted by the Court as a form of class-based animus within the meaning of § 1985(3); (2) the blockades do not fall within § 1985(3) because they are not motivated by a gender-based animus; and (3) the claims against Operation Rescue fail to meet§ 1985(3)'s requirement of interference with an independently existing right as established by the Court in Novotny.

Share

COinS