Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 248, prohibits the use of force, threat of force, and physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with individuals seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services. The Act also extends protections to religious worship and prohibits vandalism of qualifying facilities (United States v. Gallagher, 680 F.Supp.3d 886 (2023)), but has NEVER been used as a legal tool to prevent and penalize obstructive and violent conduct at places of worship.
The FACE Act has been upheld against various constitutional challenges, particularly those based on the First Amendment. Courts have consistently ruled that the Act does not violate free speech rights because it targets conduct, not speech. Specifically, the Act prohibits force, threats of force, and physical obstruction, which are not protected by the First Amendment (United States v. Gallagher, 680 F.Supp.3d 886 (2023)).
The Act is considered content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny, meaning it is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech and is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest (U.S. v. Wilson, 154 F.3d 658 (1998)). The legislative history of the FACE Act indicates that it was enacted to address a pattern of violence, threats, and blockades directed at reproductive health facilities, particularly abortion clinics. Congress intended the Act to protect public safety and health by establishing federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for such conduct (New York by James v. Rescue, 705 F.Supp.3d 104 (2023)).
Recent cases have reaffirmed the application of the FACE Act. For example, in United States v. Gallagher, the court held that the Act’s definition of “reproductive health services” includes abortion services, and the Act applies regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (United States v. Gallagher, 680 F.Supp.3d 886 (2023)). Additionally, in United States v. Williams, the court upheld the FACE Act against claims that it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (United States v. Williams, 701 F.Supp.3d 257 (2023)).
In summary, the FACE Act is a robust legal tool to prevent and penalize obstructive and violent conduct at reproductive health facilities, and it has withstood numerous constitutional challenges, but as stated above, has never been used as a tool to prosecute obstructive and violent conduct at places of worship.