What court rulings exist on applying the FACE Act to places of worship prior to 2026?
Executive summary
Federal courts have applied the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), 18 U.S.C. § 248, for decades to protect reproductive-health clinics and—by the statute’s plain text—places of religious worship, but published court rulings squarely addressing the worship prong are relatively few before 2026 and largely arise in the context of civil injunctive relief and challenges to how broadly the statute may be used against protesters [1] [2]. The Department of Justice’s renewed emphasis and recent lawsuits alleging FACE violations at houses of worship have produced new litigation starting in 2024, but appellate-level precedent specifically resolving novel questions about applying FACE to worship services remained limited as of early 2026 [3] [4].
1. What the statute says and how courts have historically treated it
The FACE Act criminalizes force, threats, physical obstruction or property damage when intended to interfere with access to reproductive-health facilities or to exercise religious freedom at places of worship; the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division expressly lists both clinics and places of religious worship as protected under 18 U.S.C. § 248 and has brought more than a dozen FACE actions nationwide over time [1] [5]. Courts reviewing FACE claims have long had to balance the statute’s protective aims against First Amendment concerns—resulting in injunctions against protesters in clinic contexts, and appellate scrutiny when injunction language or scope arguably swept too broadly into protected speech [2].
2. Key reported rulings and appeals touching the statute (clinic-focused but instructive)
While many of the precedents involve clinic protests rather than worship disruptions, the Second Circuit’s decision in New York v. Operation Rescue National is illustrative: the court vacated or narrowed aspects of district-court injunctions as overly broad (for example, a blanket ban on amplification) and emphasized independent appellate review of First Amendment issues when FACE injunctions limit expression [2]. That decision demonstrates how courts have required precision in tailoring remedies under FACE—an approach courts would likely apply when analogous claims concern houses of worship [2].
3. Reported district-court actions involving houses of worship through 2025
The Department of Justice sued individuals and groups in a 2024 case involving a New Jersey synagogue, alleging FACE violations and seeking injunctive relief—at the time DOJ officials said they believed it may have been the first FACE case brought concerning a house of worship in modern practice, signaling a shift in enforcement emphasis [3]. Media coverage and DOJ filings around that and other actions frame the government’s position that FACE’s protections “equally” cover worship access, and DOJ has sought injunctions to prevent harassment, obstruction and intimidation at synagogues and other congregations [4] [6].
4. Lower-court rulings upholding FACE in related challenges
An earlier reported decision from 1995 in the Eastern District of Virginia rejected a constitutional challenge to the FACE Act brought by the American Life League, indicating that district courts have sustained the statute’s constitutionality in at least some courtroom settings [5]. Beyond that, reported decisions have tended to focus on remedy scope and evidentiary requirements—courts require proof of intent to obstruct or use of force or threats and will scrutinize whether the conduct rises to statutory elements rather than treating all disruptive protest as automatically unlawful [3].
5. Remaining gaps, competing views, and practical implications
Despite DOJ’s recent use of FACE at houses of worship, available reporting and legal summaries through early 2026 show limited appellate decisions squarely resolving novel First Amendment or statutory-interpretation questions specific to worship disruptions; much of the litigation posture to date consists of district-court complaints and injunction requests and of clinic-focused appellate guidance that courts will likely import into worship cases [3] [2]. Advocates warn that aggressive DOJ use could chill protest and free speech, while civil-rights and religious groups argue the statute is necessary to protect congregational safety—reporting shows both arguments are active in public discourse and litigation [7] [4].