The Justice Department released a report on April 14, 2026, accusing the Biden-era DOJ of selectively enforcing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act by disproportionately prosecuting anti-abortion activists while granting leniency to abortion rights supporters. The report, the first from the department’s Weaponization Working Group, draws on internal documents and examines the department’s actions during former Attorney General Merrick Garland’s tenure.
Allegations of Biased Enforcement and Internal Actions
Passed by Congress in 1994, the FACE Act protects access to reproductive health clinics by criminalizing threats and obstruction. The report claims the Biden DOJ violated Americans’ rights by applying the law primarily against anti-abortion groups rather than those opposing them.
It accuses the DOJ and FBI of collaborating with pro-abortion organizations to monitor anti-abortion protest activity, withholding evidence, and excluding jurors based on religion. The report also criticizes the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers, led by Sanjay Patel, for close ties to abortion rights groups and for monitoring pro-life activists for years prior to charging them.
Patel was one of four federal prosecutors fired on the eve of the report’s release, alongside other officials involved in Biden-era FACE Act prosecutions. The firings have been criticized by some legal experts as politically motivated attempts to punish career DOJ attorneys for enforcing the law.
The report highlights sentencing disparities, noting prosecutors requested an average of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants compared to 12.3 months for pro-choice defendants. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche condemned selective prosecution and pledged to restore prosecutorial integrity.
Longstanding Disputes over FACE Act Enforcement
Since the Biden administration took office, allegations have surfaced—primarily from Trump-era officials—that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division unfairly targeted conservative Christians opposed to abortion. While some abortion rights activists faced charges, these cases were few compared to the number targeting anti-abortion activists.
Several Biden-era FACE Act cases were pardoned by former President Donald Trump, and some prosecutions were dropped or paused by the Justice Department. Remaining cases against abortion rights activists have proceeded, including one Florida defendant sentenced to 120 days in prison in March 2025.
Expanding Use of the FACE Act in Other Prosecutions
The DOJ has also attempted to apply the FACE Act in novel ways, such as a recent case against journalist Don Lemon and others for alleged intimidation of religious worshippers during an anti-ICE protest. This marks the first time the law’s provision protecting places of worship has been charged, despite earlier internal DOJ warnings about its constitutionality and jurisdiction.
Why it matters
This report raises critical questions about the impartiality of federal law enforcement regarding politically sensitive protests and the enforcement of laws protecting access to reproductive health services. It also signals potential shifts in DOJ prosecutorial priorities and could influence ongoing or future FACE Act prosecutions. The firing of federal prosecutors involved in these cases underscores ongoing tensions within the department.
Background
The FACE Act was enacted in response to escalating violence and intimidation at reproductive clinics in the early 1990s. It aims to safeguard patients and staff by criminalizing obstruction and threats. Enforcement of the law has occasionally been politically contentious, reflecting broader national divides over abortion rights. The Weaponization Working Group was created in 2025 by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to review potential misuse of DOJ resources in politically sensitive cases.
Read more Politics stories on Goka World News.