Against the backdrop of the first amendment, the use of civil RICO against protesters poses compelling constitutional questions. Expressivist activities such as protest marches, picketing or public and private facilities, mass mailings, and newsletters are entitled to protection under the first amendment. Even though a Federal circuit court recognized that protest activities in the McMonagle case were entitled to protection under the first amendment, the court found that the government's interest in public safety justified the imposition of limits on such expression. It is contended that RICO creates limits on expressive conduct that are broader than necessary to limit wrongful protest activity, since State criminal and tort law already provides adequate redress for victims of disruptive protest acts. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld limitations on organized protest activity only when limits are content neutral. It is argued that RICO represents a potential prior restraint on protest activities, based on the threat of severe penalties and provisions regarding conspiracy to commit a RICO offense. The Supreme Court should scrutinize the use of civil RICO against protest groups and limit RICO's use when first amendment rights are threatened. 92 footnotes