A draft Justice Department report is reigniting the “two-tier justice” debate by accusing the Biden-era DOJ of enforcing the FACE Act hard against pro-life activists while giving far less attention to attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers.
Quick Take
- A Trump DOJ “weaponization working group” drafted a report alleging uneven FACE Act enforcement during the Biden years.
- Pro-life attorney Peter Breen told a House Judiciary subcommittee the Biden DOJ brought 23 cases tied to a Washington, D.C., clinic blockade that resulted in multi-year prison sentences.
- President Trump pardoned several convicted pro-life activists in January 2025, and DOJ later dismissed remaining pro-life FACE cases and paused new investigations.
- The DOJ also fired at least four prosecutors who worked on FACE Act cases as the draft report neared completion.
Draft DOJ report puts FACE Act enforcement under a political microscope
Justice Department has prepared a draft report accusing the prior administration of unevenly applying the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The report, developed by a “weaponization working group,” alleges Biden-era prosecutors prioritized cases against pro-life activists accused of obstructing abortion clinics while pursuing comparatively few cases tied to vandalism or attacks on pregnancy resource centers. The document’s draft status matters, because key claims have not been fully aired in court or publicly documented.
House Republicans are using the report’s claims to frame a larger argument that federal law enforcement has been driven by politics rather than neutral standards. Democrats and abortion-rights allies counter that FACE Act prosecutions followed evidence presented to juries and reflected a legal duty to keep clinic entrances accessible. The clash is less about whether the law exists—Congress passed it in 1994—and more about whether the government has been applying it consistently across ideologies.
What the FACE Act covers—and why it keeps coming back
Congress enacted the FACE Act in 1994 after a period of violence and intimidation around abortion facilities, and the statute also protects access to places of religious worship. The law bars force, threats of force, and physical obstruction that intentionally interferes with a person obtaining or providing reproductive health services or exercising religious freedom. Penalties can escalate from misdemeanors for nonviolent first offenses to felony exposure if injury occurs or violations repeat.
After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe, abortion politics shifted from a primarily federal court fight to a state-driven policy fight, and protests intensified. That environment increased the number of flashpoints for enforcement decisions: blockades and sit-ins near clinics on one side, and vandalism against pregnancy centers on the other. The political sensitivity of choosing which cases to prioritize makes consistency—and transparency—critical for public trust in the DOJ.
Testimony and the D.C. blockade cases: the center of the dispute
At a recent House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, pro-life attorney Peter Breen argued that the Biden DOJ “weaponized” the statute in a “systematic campaign” against pro-life activists. He pointed to a set of prosecutions that, according to reporting and testimony, included 23 cases tied to a Washington, D.C., clinic blockade. Those cases produced convictions and multi-year prison sentences, and the defendants later received pardons from President Trump in January 2025.
Reporting on the draft report also notes a core tension: supporters of the Biden-era approach say juries upheld prosecutions based on evidence that clinic access was blocked and, in some accounts, that injuries occurred. Critics argue that even if some conduct crossed legal lines, enforcement priorities looked lopsided when compared with the number of investigations and prosecutions tied to attacks on pro-life centers. Because the full report has not been publicly released, outsiders cannot yet evaluate the DOJ’s full evidentiary record or case selection criteria.
Trump administration response: pardons, case dismissals, and prosecutor firings
The Trump administration’s actions went beyond publishing a critique. After issuing pardons early in the second term, the DOJ dismissed remaining FACE-related cases against pro-life defendants, halted new investigations in that lane, and allowed at least one case against an abortion-rights activist to proceed to a short sentence in Florida. Around the time the draft report was being finalized, DOJ leadership fired at least four prosecutors involved in prior FACE cases, including Sanjay Patel.
The politics of those steps are obvious, but the institutional consequence may be bigger than any single case: Americans across the spectrum already doubt that federal agencies apply rules evenly. Conservatives see the FACE Act episode as another example of bureaucratic power aimed downward at ordinary citizens with unpopular beliefs. Many liberals fear the pendulum swing could weaken protections for patients and providers. Either way, the durable issue is legitimacy—when enforcement looks selective, faith in equal justice erodes.
Sources:
DOJ fires 4 prosecutors involved in FACE Act cases under Biden administration
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances and Places of Religious Worship
