Harmeet Dhillon

So that's not the standard.

The case you mentioned is Oropesa versus United States, which I personally argued and defended the conviction of in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just three or four months ago.

And I went into court and defended the Klan Act application to this particular fact pattern.

through some people who are charged with face act violations in that case, some of the conspirators pled guilty.

And so you're correct.

This was spray painting.

This was aggressive threats of kind of violent threats.

And in response to those threats, each of these clinics, which were religiously based clinics,

had to hire additional security.

They had to not allow walk-ins to their clinics.

So they weren't able to serve some women in crisis.

They required appointments only.

They had to, you know, the workers there were in fear.

Some people called out sick because they were afraid.

And this organization was called Jane's Revenge.

It's kind of a, you know,

I would call it quasi-terrorist organization designed to terrorize people of faith.

And this was in the wake of the Dobbs decision.

So when you look at the case law, people have been convicted under the FACE Act for much, much less than exactly what happened here.

But let's look at the words of the protesters themselves.