Justice Without Fear or Favor?

The DOJ, the FACE Act, and the Future of Equal Justice under Law

 A newly released Department of Justice report examining enforcement of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act between 2021 and 2024 raises a question that should concern every American committed to constitutional governance. Did the Department of Justice depart from its calling to administer justice without fear or favor, or did it drift toward the selective exercise of governmental power to advance political preferences?

This is not merely a political inquiry. It is a constitutional one. And ultimately, it is a moral one.

Having served within the Department of Justice as a Senior Assistant United States Attorney, I do not approach this question lightly. The Department, at its best, embodies a simple but profound commitment. The rule of law governs, not political pressure. Evidence determines outcomes, not ideology. Justice is pursued, not weaponized. 

The FACE Act, enacted in 1994, is facially neutral. It prohibits force, threats, or obstruction against individuals seeking services at medical facilities or exercising religious freedom at places of worship.

The law itself is not the problem. The constitutional concern arises in its application. Government may enforce a fair law in profoundly unfair ways. And when a regime selectively enforces, targeting one class of citizens while protecting another from prosecution, the principle of equal justice under law gives way to something else.

The Report and the Troubling Pattern It Suggests

The DOJ report points to troubling enforcement patterns during the 2021–2024 period. Here federal authorities disproportionately prosecuted pro-life advocates, aggressively intervening in certain cases.  At the same time, comparatively limited enforcement occurred in response to documented attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches. 

To be clear, the issue is not whether violations of law involving true threats and violence should be prosecuted. They should.  The question is whether the Department of Justice treated similar violations similarly, regardless of viewpoint. That is the constitutional standard. Not equal outcomes, but equal application.

The Constitutional Framework

Our constitutional framework demands fairness and neutrality from those who wield prosecutorial power. The First Amendment prohibits targeting individuals based on their beliefs or religious convictions. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process. And embedded within our legal tradition is the enduring principle of equal justice under law. Selective prosecution, based on impermissible considerations like viewpoint or religion, is unconstitutional.

A Personal Reflection on Justice

When I served in the Department of Justice, a clear understanding existed that we did not represent a political party, we represented the United States of America.  Our obligation was not to advance a preferred political agenda, but to pursue justice. We prosecuted based on evidence, not ideology. We held individuals accountable for what they did, not for what they believed. And we did so without fear… and without favor. Without fear means we do not shrink from enforcing the law. Without favor means we do not selectively apply it. When government compromises either principle, public trust erodes. And when trust erodes, the rule of law itself diminishes and weakens.

The Houck Case and Its Implications

The prosecution of a pro-life Christian, Mark Houck, illustrates the concern. Following a local matter outside an abortion facility, one local authorities declined to prosecute, federal authorities aggressively intervened. The manner of arrest, reportedly involving numerous armed agents, raised serious questions.  After a federal trial, the jury found Mr. Houck not guilty.

Such an acquittal invites scrutiny, particularly here, given the substantial seven figure civil settlement that followed it. When compared to the limited federal response to reports of vandalism, threats, and violence directed at Christians and pro-life facilities, a troubling question emerges. Does the pattern reflect an intentional absence of neutrality and fairness?

The Deeper Issue: Worldview and the Fair Application of Law

Law is never applied in a vacuum. It is shaped, often subtly, by worldview. If one holds human life inherently sacred, then enforcement must reflect that truth. If one holds that conscience carries moral weight, then enforcement must reflect that truth. And if one understands that religious conscience deserves robust protection, then enforcement must reflect that truth as well. By contrast, a governing regime shaped by a worldview that elevates autonomy, treats moral claims as subjective, and views religious conviction with suspicion invites uneven and unjust enforcement. And when that occurs. law becomes not an instrument of justice, but a vehicle for ideology.

For people of faith, this moment demands clarity and courage. We are called to engage the public square, not with anger, but with conviction; not with hostility, but with integrity; not with rudeness, but with compassion and respect.  At the same time, we must recognize the cost of faithfulness. If government begins to treat religious conscience as suspect, believers must be prepared to stand, peacefully, lawfully, but resolutely in truth.

Restoring Good Governance under the Rule of Law

Restoring our federal justice institutions to sound governance under the rule of law requires accountability, clarity, and grounded conviction. The Department of Justice must reaffirm its commitment to neutrality, fairness, and even-handed enforcement. Where law enforcement authorities view religious conscience with suspicion, Congress must exercise oversight to ensure that justice institutions not use federal statutes in ways that undermine constitutional protections. But ultimately, our hope does not rest in institutions alone. It rests in truth. And in the enduring reality that justice, true justice, is not merely a legal construct, but a moral one.

A Final Word

The defining question before us is whether justice in America will remain anchored in truth, or drift toward the preferred political ideology of those holding power? When justice is no longer blind, when enforcement is no longer equal, when citizens begin to wonder whether their beliefs place them at risk, we confront a constitutional crisis.

But there is still time. Time to restore integrity. Time to reclaim principle. Time to ensure that the law once again operates, without fear… and without favor.

Scripture reminds us in Micah 6:8: “What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”

That is not only a personal calling. It is a standard for institutions. And it remains the only sure foundation for a just and free society.