Rutherford Urges Equal Prosecution Under FACE Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Thursday, U.S. Congressman John H. Rutherford (FL-05) sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to highlight the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) failure to appropriately enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in response to attacks against places of worship and pregnancy centers.

The letter was signed by eight members of Congress and has the support of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

“The Justice Department has failed to prosecute a single act of violence against places of religious worship under the FACT Act,” said Rutherford. “In fact, only five individuals have been prosecuted under the FACE Act for attacking pro-life pregnancy centers, while the Justice Department actively prosecutes numerous protests outside of abortion clinics. In the wake of the recent pro-Palestinian protest that interrupted an Easter vigil mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, and the over 150 attacks on churches and pregnancy resource centers across the nation since the Dobbs decision, I urge the Justice Department to apply the FACE Act equally and prosecute those who attack places of worship and religious organizations.”

 "President Biden’s Department of Justice is using the FACE Act to target and prosecute peaceful pro-life protesters and people of faith, while failing to investigate the numerous attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches across America since the leak of the Dobbs decision," said the Hon. Marilyn Musgrave, Vice President of Government Affairs at SBA Pro-Life America. "Thank you, Congressman Rutherford, for your leadership on this important letter calling out the Department of Justice for weaponizing the FACE Act and demanding accountability for its abuses of the FACE Act against pro-life Americans and institutions."

Read the letter below:

Dear Attorney General Garland,

We write to express serious concerns over the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) failure to enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act for targeted attacks against religious organizations.

As you know, the FACE Act protects free and safe access to places of religious worship and to facilities that provide reproductive health services, including pregnancy centers. Under 18 U.S. Code § 248(a)(2), anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship” shall be prosecuted under federal law.

On March 30, 2024, three protestors interrupted Easter Vigil mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City by running up to the altar yelling “Free Palestine” and holding a banner that read “Silence Equals Death.” The New York Police Department took the defendants into custody and charged them with disrupting a religious service, yet they were released soon after without bail.

Since the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in 2022, over 150 attacks on churches and pregnancy resource centers have occurred across the country.

While the DOJ actively prosecutes individuals who protest outside abortion clinics, your agency has failed to prosecute a single act of violence against places of religious worship and has only prosecuted five cases under the FACE Act for attacks on pro-life reproductive health facilities. This unequal application of the law shows a clear double standard that ignores FACE Act violations by activists at churches and pro-life reproductive health facilities and decidedly targets violators at pro-abortion facilities.

For these reasons, your response is requested to the following questions within 30 days of receipt:

1. How many federal prosecutions have been pursued for violations of the FACE Act?
2. Is DOJ investigating FACE Act charges against the individuals who interfered with religious worship at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on March 30, 2024? If not, please explain this decision.
3. What criteria does DOJ use to make the decision to pursue charges under the FACE Act?
4. Does DOJ collaborate with state and local law enforcement to identify FACE Act violations?

We appreciate your prompt attention to this serious matter and look forward to your response.