Understanding the FACE ACT

Recently, this little known law came into focus as the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation, resulting in arrests, for individuals who disrupted service at a church in Minnesota in January 2026.

There have been a number of political figues, mainly from the Democratic party, who have claimed that these protestors did nothing criminally wrong. Ironically, prominent figures from the Democratic party are silent about this claim. Why is that, you might be wondering? Because, it was an act authored by - Chuck Schumer (D-NY) during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Here are the details that you need to arm yourself with in order to understand the truth behind the DOJ's arrest of three of the protestors.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is a federal law enacted to ensure safe access to reproductive health services and places of religious worship.

What is the FACE Act?

The FACE Act (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 248) makes it a federal crime to use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is:

• Obtaining or providing reproductive health services (such as at an abortion clinic or fertility center).

  
  

• Exercising their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.

  
  

It also prohibits the intentional damage or destruction of property belonging to a reproductive health facility or a place of worship. While often associated with abortion clinics, the law is designed to be content-neutral, protecting both pro-choice and pro-life facilities as well as all religious denominations.

When did it become law?

The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 26, 1994.

It was passed in response to an escalation of violence and blockades at abortion clinics during the late 1980s and early 1990s, including the 1993 murder of Dr. David Gunn in Florida.

Who were the primary sponsors?

The legislation was a high-profile effort in both chambers of Congress during the 103rd Congress:

• House of Representatives: The bill (H.R. 796) was chiefly sponsored by Representative Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It also had significant bipartisan support, with Representative Constance Morella (R-MD) serving as a chief co-sponsor.

  
  

• Senate: The Senate version (S. 636) was sponsored by Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-MA).

How often has this law been apllied and to what kinds of cases?

The application of the FACE Act has fluctuated significantly since its 1994 inception, shifting in response to changes in federal administrations and high-profile Supreme Court rulings.

Historically, it has primarily been used against anti-abortion activists, but it also contains protections for religious worship and "crisis pregnancy centers."

1. Frequency of Prosecution

Enforcement trends often follow the priorities of the Department of Justice (DOJ):

• The Early Years (1994–2000): Immediately after passage, enforcement was high. Between 1994 and 2005, the DOJ obtained convictions for 71 individuals in 46 criminal cases.

• The 2000s and 2010s: Prosecutions dropped during the George W. Bush administration (averaging about two defendants per year) and saw a moderate increase during the Obama administration.

  
  

• Post-Dobbs Surge (2022–Present): Following the leak and official ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson (which overturned Roe v. Wade), the Biden-Harris DOJ significantly increased its use of the Act. Between 2021 and mid-2024, the DOJ brought 24 FACE Act cases against 55 defendants.

  
  

2. Types of Cases

The law is applied to three specific categories of conduct, though the vast majority of historical cases involve reproductive health clinics.

Case Type	Description & Examples
Clinic Blockades	The most common application. These involve physical "rescues" where activists sit in front of clinic doors or chain themselves to gates. A notable recent case (2023) involved the conviction of several activists for a 2020 blockade in Washington, D.C.
Violence & Threats	Prosecutions for physical assaults on clinic staff, death threats sent to doctors, or high-profile acts like the firebombing of facilities. It has been used to prosecute individuals who use "threats of force" to intimidate patients.
Religious Worship	Though the Act protects houses of worship, it is used far less frequently in this context. However, as of January 2026, there is active discussion regarding its application to protests that disrupt church services or vandalize religious property.
Pregnancy Resource Centers	In recent years, the DOJ has begun applying the Act to individuals who vandalize "pro-life" pregnancy centers. For example, in 2023 and 2024, several activists were indicted for vandalizing such centers in Florida and Ohio.

3. Recent Legal Trends

• "Conspiracy Against Rights": In several recent cases, federal prosecutors have paired FACE Act charges with a Reconstruction-era law called "Conspiracy Against Rights." This strategy significantly increases potential prison time (up to 10 years), leading to intense political debate over the "weaponization" of the law.

  
  

• Calls for Repeal: Because of the recent spike in prosecutions against pro-life activists, there have been legislative efforts in 2025 and 2026 by some members of Congress to repeal the Act entirely, arguing that state-level trespass and assault laws are sufficient.

In the last ten years there have been scant few applications of the law, arrests for protesting in a church are very rare.

Over the past 10 years, protests at churches have occurred under several presidential administrations, typically sparked by high-profile social or political shifts. While the FACE Act explicitly protects places of religious worship, its application in these cases has been historically rare compared to its use for reproductive health clinics, though this has changed recently.

Summary of Church Protests and Prosecution (2014–2024)

Time Period	President	Context of Protests	Prosecution Status
2014–2016	Barack Obama	Civil rights and "Black Lives Matter" protests occasionally moved to or targeted specific churches involved in local politics.	No major federal FACE Act prosecutions were reported for church-related protests; most were handled via local trespassing or noise ordinances.
2017–2020	Donald Trump	Protests regarding immigration (sanctuary churches) and racial justice. Some churches were vandalized during the 2020 unrest following George Floyd’s death.	Prosecution was largely local. The DOJ did not utilize the FACE Act for these incidents, focusing federal resources instead on civil unrest and arson.
2021–2024	Joe Biden	Post-Dobbs Surge: Following the leak and final ruling in Dobbs (2022), groups like "Ruth Sent Us" called for disruptions of Catholic Masses. Dozens of churches were vandalized or faced service disruptions.	Critics and members of Congress noted that while the DOJ brought dozens of FACE Act charges against pro-life activists at clinics, they brought zero FACE Act charges for the 2022–2023 church disruptions. Prosecution remained local (e.g., vandalism arrests).
2025–Present	Donald Trump	Anti-ICE protests targeting churches where ICE officials served as clergy (specifically in Minnesota in Jan. 2026).	Active Federal Prosecution: The DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi has aggressively applied the FACE Act to these church disruptions, leading to the arrest of high-profile activists (e.g., Nekima Levy Armstrong).

Key Findings on Criminal Prosecution

1. The "First-of-its-Kind" Shift (2025-2026) Media reports from early 2026 indicate a historic shift in how the law is applied. For nearly 30 years, the FACE Act was almost exclusively used for clinic-related cases. However, in January 2026, the DOJ officially opened investigations and filed charges against protesters who disrupted services at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. This marks one of the first major uses of the "Religious Freedom" provision of the FACE Act to prosecute political protesters.

2. Vandalism vs. FACE Act Over the last decade, hundreds of incidents of church vandalism (arson, graffiti, smashed windows) have been recorded. While federal laws like the Church Arson Prevention Act have been used to prosecute cases involving fire or racial bias, the FACE Act—which specifically targets the obstruction of worship—went largely unused for church protests until the recent 2026 Minnesota cases.

3. The Post-Dobbs Disparity A significant point of media reporting between 2022 and 2024 was the disparity in prosecution. During the Biden administration, over 100 Catholic churches were targeted with pro-abortion graffiti or disrupted services. While some individuals were arrested on state-level charges (like "Disturbing a Religious Assembly" or "Trespassing"), the federal government was frequently criticized for not using the FACE Act to protect these religious sites, a stance that has been reversed under the current administration.

Sources Cited for this Article:

Primary Legislative & Government Sources

• U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division): Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances & Places of Religious Worship (18 U.S.C. § 248). * Congress.gov (118th Congress): Revisiting the Implications of the FACE Act: Part II (Official hearing text examining enforcement disparities and historical application).

• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO): Report on Criminal and Civil Cases Pertaining to FACE (1994–1998).

Contemporary News & Media Reports (2024–2026)

• CBS News (Minnesota): AG Pam Bondi: 3 arrested over disruption of ICE pastor's church services (Reported January 22, 2026).

• Religion News Service (RNS): Cities Church in Minnesota is considering legal options after anti-ICE protest (January 20, 2026).

• Grand Pinnacle Tribune: Minnesota Church Protest Sparks Arrests and Legal Showdown (January 23, 2026).

• Capital B News: Trump Administration Targets Black Church Protesters Over ICE Demonstration (January 23, 2026).

• Center for Reproductive Rights: Seeking Transparency on Trump's Greenlighting of Violence Against Abortion Providers and Patients (Analysis of 2025–2026 shifts in FACE Act enforcement).

Historical & Academic Overviews

• The First Amendment Encyclopedia (MTSU): Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (Overview of sponsorship, history, and constitutional standing).

• Colorado Law Scholarly Commons: How the FACE Act Harms, Rather than Helps, the Post-Dobbs Abortion Movement (Academic analysis of 30 years of FACE Act application).

• National Abortion Federation (NAF): 2022–2023 Statistics on Violence and Disruption (Data regarding clinic obstruction trends).

Official Representative & Advocacy Statements

• Office of Congressman John Rutherford (R-FL): Rutherford Urges Equal Prosecution Under FACE Act (May 2024).

• Office of Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): 72 House Democrats Demand DOJ Enforce FACE Act, Protect Women’s Health Clinics (March 2025).