On 14 April, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) released an extensive report of more than 800 pages evaluating the implementation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) during the administration of President Joe Biden.
The document is based on a review of approximately 700,000 internal records and examines the practices of federal agencies in investigating and prosecuting abortion-related cases.
The report was prepared by a Department of Justice task force examining the possible misuse of state institutions for political or ideological purposes. According to the department’s current leadership, it identifies several areas in which the law may have been applied unevenly.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the goal was to restore public confidence in the fair and impartial functioning of the justice system. He stressed that the department would not tolerate selective prosecutions based on individuals’ beliefs.
Enforcement of the FACE Act
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) was introduced in 1994 to protect access to facilities such as abortion clinics as well as pregnancy help centers. It prohibits the use of force, threats or physical obstruction of access to such places.
Its use came to greater prominence following the US Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the 1973 precedent of Roe v. Wade. That earlier decision had guaranteed a federal right to abortion as part of the constitutional right to privacy.
The Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution does not explicitly include such a right and returned the issue of abortion regulation to individual states. States then began passing their own laws, creating significant legal differences across the country and increasing social tensions.
In that context, the federal Department of Justice began using the FACE Act more frequently in cases involving protests and activities outside health care facilities.
Cooperation With NGOs
The report states that federal authorities maintained close communication with pro-abortion rights organizations during the investigations. Among those mentioned are the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood and the Feminist Majority Foundation.
According to the document, those organizations provided information about the activities of pro-life activists, including public appearances, rallies and travel. In some cases, they allegedly collected documents that later contributed to the issuance of search warrants or the filing of charges.
Specific email exchanges are included among the released materials. Prosecutor Sanjay Patel reportedly identified the National Abortion Federation’s security director as a significant source of information during the investigations.
The communications also include requests to provide additional details about specific activists and their associates.
Prosecutorial Conduct
The report also highlights the conduct of prosecutors. In some cases, it says, they withheld evidence requested by the defense or sought to exclude jurors on the basis of religious beliefs.
It also refers to forceful arrest procedures, even when defendants were reportedly cooperative. According to the report, such practices raise serious questions about fair trial standards.
The document also points to a marked difference in proposed sentences. Prosecutors sought an average of 26.8 months in prison for pro-life defendants, while the average in cases involving violence by abortion-rights supporters was 12.3 months.
It further notes that some attacks on pregnancy help centers or religious facilities were not pursued with the same intensity as cases involving abortion clinics.
Surveillance of Pro-Lifers and Presidential Pardons
The report also revisits the period after the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot in Washington, DC, when a mob stormed the Capitol during the certification of the presidential election results. In the days that followed, security concerns intensified and federal authorities increased scrutiny of various civic gatherings.
According to the report, in that context, some organizations, particularly the National Abortion Federation, actively communicated with authorities and provided information about pro-life activists. Ahead of the annual March for Life, authorities reportedly received lists of individuals identified as “persons of interest”, including several well-known activists.
The document argues that the monitoring extended beyond specific incidents and included broader activities such as public appearances, rallies and participation in public events. The March for Life itself ultimately took place in a limited form without any disruption to public order.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump pardoned 23 individuals convicted under the FACE Act. Among them were several prominent activists, including Lauren Handy, who had been serving the longest sentence of 57 months.
Following those pardons, the Department of Justice announced a change in its approach to enforcing the act. New guidelines state that prosecutions under the FACE Act should be pursued only in exceptional circumstances, such as serious violence, serious bodily harm or extensive property damage.
The department also withdrew three civil lawsuits filed against pro-life activists and took personnel action against some of those involved.
What Comes Next?
The publication of the report has prompted mixed reactions. The Thomas More Society, a legal organization, said the findings confirmed its long-standing claims of selective prosecution of pro-life activists. Some of those pardoned also issued statements suggesting they may return to public speaking and advocacy on behalf of unborn life.
By contrast, former Civil Rights Division official Kristen Clarke rejected the report’s conclusions. She said the department had taken a balanced approach during her tenure and had focused on addressing violence, threats and obstruction related to health care access.
The Justice Department has said it will continue reviewing complaints from all affected individuals, regardless of their beliefs. Its stated goal is to ensure equal access to justice and the protection of civil rights.
Acting Attorney General Blanche approved the partial release of the internal materials on which the report was based, allowing the public to examine the findings for itself.