Bar complaint targets Biden DOJ prosecutor’s license
A conservative watchdog group is escalating the fight over alleged political bias inside the Department of Justice, filing a formal complaint seeking the disbarment of former DOJ attorney Sanjay Patel, a key figure in the Biden administration’s enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
The complaint, filed by Democracy Restored with New York’s Attorney Grievance Committee, accuses Patel of violating legal ethics rules by coordinating with abortion-rights organizations, selectively targeting pro-life activists, and engaging in conduct that undermined public confidence in the justice system.
The filing comes just weeks after the Trump administration’s Justice Department released a sweeping report alleging that Biden-era prosecutors used the FACE Act in a politically biased manner, aggressively pursuing pro-life defendants while downplaying attacks against pregnancy resource centers and houses of worship.
Ethics Complaint Targets Former FACE Act Prosecutor
According to the complaint, Patel served as director of the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers under former Attorney General Merrick Garland. Democracy Restored alleges that Patel worked closely with abortion-rights advocacy groups, shared internal information with outside organizations, and helped facilitate grant applications while overseeing federal prosecutions of pro-life activists.
The complaint cites findings from the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, which reviewed hundreds of thousands of records related to FACE Act enforcement. The report alleges that federal prosecutors coordinated with abortion-rights organizations, withheld evidence, screened jurors based on religious beliefs, and pursued harsher penalties for pro-life defendants than for abortion-rights activists.
Patel has not publicly responded to the latest disbarment effort.
Mark Houck Case Returns to Center Stage
One of the most prominent examples cited in both the complaint and the DOJ report involves pro-life activist Mark Houck.
Houck was arrested by armed FBI agents in 2022 following an altercation outside a Philadelphia abortion clinic. Federal prosecutors charged him under the FACE Act, but a jury later acquitted him on all counts. The case became a rallying point for conservatives who argued that the Biden administration was using federal law enforcement to intimidate political opponents.
The DOJ’s 2026 review claims internal communications showed concerns about the strength of the case while prosecutors continued pushing for charges. The report also criticized the decision to conduct a high-profile arrest rather than allowing Houck to surrender voluntarily.
Growing Battle Over “Weaponization” Claims
The controversy is part of a broader political and legal struggle over allegations that federal law enforcement agencies were used to target ideological opponents.
The Trump administration’s Weaponization Working Group was established to review cases involving January 6 defendants, pro-life activists, and other matters conservatives argue reflected selective enforcement. The group’s first major report focused on FACE Act prosecutions and accused Biden-era DOJ officials of creating a two-tiered system of justice.
Critics strongly dispute those findings.
Former DOJ officials and civil rights attorneys have argued that the report cherry-picks evidence and ignores court rulings that upheld many FACE Act prosecutions. Several former department officials have described Patel as an experienced career prosecutor who followed established legal procedures and enforced federal law as written.
Disbarment Complaints Becoming a Political Weapon
The Patel complaint also highlights a growing trend in American politics: the use of state bar complaints against attorneys involved in high-profile political cases.
In recent years, attorneys across the political spectrum have faced ethics complaints tied to election litigation, January 6 investigations, abortion-related prosecutions, and cases involving former President Donald Trump. The complaint itself notes similar efforts directed at attorneys such as John Eastman, Jack Smith, and others.
Whether New York disciplinary authorities ultimately take action against Patel remains unclear. Attorney grievance committees traditionally move slowly and often dismiss complaints that are viewed as political disputes rather than clear ethical violations.
For now, however, the filing ensures that the battle over alleged DOJ weaponization will continue long after the original prosecutions have ended.