What are the DOJ’s policies and precedents for applying the FACE Act to houses of worship versus clinics?
Executive summary
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248, is written to protect both access to reproductive health facilities and the free exercise of religion at places of worship by criminalizing force, threats, physical obstruction, intimidation, and property damage; that statutory parity is explicit in the statute’s text [1] and reiterated by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division [2]. Historically the DOJ has deployed FACE overwhelmingly against interruptions of reproductive health clinics, with cases involving houses of worship rare until recent years when the Department sought to apply the statute to synagogue and church disruptions—moves that have produced litigation, a magistrate judge rebuke, and political controversy [3] [4] [5].
1. Legal scope: identical statutory protections, different contexts
The statute’s language treats clinics and places of worship in parallel: the FACE Act bars use or threat of force, physical obstruction, intimidation or interference with persons seeking reproductive health services or exercising religious freedom at a place of worship, and forbids intentional property damage to either type of facility [1] [2]. That parity means DOJ policy must, on its face, permit application to either setting; the Civil Rights Division’s public materials repeat that FACE “protects access to reproductive health care clinics and places of religious worship” [2].
2. DOJ enforcement practice to date: clinic-first, worship rarely invoked
In practice, FACE enforcement has overwhelmingly targeted anti‑abortion protesters blocking clinics: DOJ records and reporting show hundreds of FACE matters since enactment with almost all brought in clinic contexts, and until recently virtually no prosecutions or civil suits charging obstruction of worship services [3]. The Civil Rights Division acknowledges more than 15 FACE actions in over a dozen states but most historical deployment focused on clinics rather than houses of worship [2] [3].
3. Recent precedents: first known uses to protect worship and ensuing litigation
The Department’s 2024–2025 civil suit alleging violations at a New Jersey synagogue marked what DOJ officials and some legal observers called a precedent‑setting step to use FACE to protect a place of worship—an approach repeated in subsequent investigations and filings tied to disruptive protests at churches and synagogues [3] [4]. Those cases are not settled law: a federal magistrate judge rejected FACE charges against defendants accused of disrupting a Minneapolis church service, illustrating judicial skepticism and signaling that application to worship can face uphill evidentiary/interpretive challenges [5].
4. DOJ policy shifts and political overlay
Enforcement choices under FACE have reflected changing Department priorities: recent administrations signaled different thresholds for federal intervention, including a Trump‑era memo noting many incidents could be handled by state law and reducing federal FACE prosecutions [6], while later DOJ leadership pursued FACE claims to address antisemitic and other faith‑based disruptions [7] [4]. Those shifts produced partisan debate: critics argue selective enforcement or expansion into worship sites is politically driven, while advocates contend DOJ is correcting an enforcement gap to protect congregations [6] [8].
5. Proving a FACE violation: different evidentiary hurdles depending on setting
Prosecutors must establish specific intent to block access or interfere through force, threats, physical obstruction, or property damage—elements equally required for clinics and houses of worship [1] [3]. But courts and practitioners note practical distinctions: clinic cases often involve clear physical blockades or documented harassment of patients and staff, whereas worship cases may hinge on whether protesters entered buildings, intimidated worshippers, or rendered ingress/egress impassable—factual lines that have produced contested rulings [3] [5].
6. Limits, open questions and sources of contention
Gaps remain in precedent: because most FACE litigation historically addressed clinics, there is limited binding appellate guidance about applying the statute to places of worship, and recent DOJ civil suits and indictments are creating the first significant test cases that could shape doctrine [3] [4]. Reporting documents policy shifts and court losses but cannot predict appellate outcomes; where sources do not provide final appellate rulings or uniform guidance, this reporting cannot resolve whether the statute will be read broadly to protect all worship disruptions or narrowly to cover only the most egregious physical obstructions [3] [5].
Conclusion
The FACE Act’s text and DOJ guidance allow equal application to clinics and houses of worship [1] [2], but historical practice, prosecutorial discretion, and initial judicial responses have kept most enforcement focused on reproductive‑health sites while newly asserted worship‑site prosecutions and civil suits are testing the statute’s reach; the coming wave of litigation will determine whether those DOE actions become durable precedent or remain contested, case‑specific applications shaped by politics and facts [3] [4] [5].