A blistering internal review from the Department of Justice is ripping the lid off what critics long suspected: under Joe Biden, federal prosecutors didn’t just enforce the law — they allegedly picked sides.

The nearly 900-page report, based on more than 700,000 documents, paints a picture of a Justice Department that went all-in chasing pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act — better known as the FACE Act — while appearing far less interested in going after offenses on the other side of the abortion divide.

The FACE Act, passed in 1994, was supposed to be neutral — protecting access to abortion clinics, churches, and pregnancy centers alike. But neutrality, according to this review, may have been the first casualty.

Emails uncovered in the probe show a Biden-era task force — launched by former Attorney General Merrick Garland after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision — working hand-in-glove with abortion advocacy heavyweights like Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Federation.

One DOJ attorney even gushed that a staffer from the abortion group was an “MVP” for feeding the feds real-time tips that “usually result in an investigation/prosecution.”

Meanwhile, when defense attorneys came knocking for comparable data — like how often attacks on pregnancy centers were prosecuted — the answer was essentially: nothing to see here.

That, the review found, wasn’t true. If the emails are to be believed, it wasn’t just activism that raised eyebrows — it was religion.

In one case, prosecutors floated ways to extract information about defendants’ faith “without directly asking it.” Draft jury selection notes flagged some Christian jurors for removal. Elsewhere, internal communications referred to pro-life activists as “culty” before someone apparently realized that might not play well in court.

One frustrated prosecutor even complained about drawing a “very Catholic magistrate,” grumbling that he was “very particular about the bond conditions and not infringing on their first amendment rights.” Imagine that — a judge caring about constitutional rights.

Then there’s the case that became a lightning rod: pro-life activist Mark Houck. Houck, a father of seven, was arrested at his Pennsylvania home in 2022 by a swarm of armed FBI agents — some carrying long guns — over allegations tied to a scuffle outside an abortion clinic.

The show-of-force arrest raised eyebrows at the time. Now, internal emails suggest even DOJ insiders had doubts. Some lawyers warned of “litigation risks,” but the push to prosecute went forward anyway.

At one point, the task force leader admitted the “main reason” for the dramatic arrest may have been to seize phones — before adding a zinger: “I think the unspoken reason is bc the FBI really likes to make arrests.” Houck was later acquitted by a jury.

The disparity didn’t stop at arrests. According to the report, Biden-era prosecutors sought an average of 26.8 months behind bars for pro-life defendants — more than double the 12.3 months pursued in cases involving pro-abortion offenders. Judges followed suit, handing down significantly longer sentences on average. So much for equal justice under law.

Now, under President Donald Trump, the DOJ is signaling a hard pivot. On his third day back in office, Trump pardoned 23 pro-life activists convicted under the FACE Act, many of whom he described as elderly and unfairly targeted. “This Department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs.” The report indicates some DOJ employees could now face internal discipline — or even criminal referrals.

One official didn’t mince words, calling the behavior uncovered “shameful” and accusing government lawyers of turning the Justice Department into “the enforcement arm of pro-abortion special interests.”

For years, Americans were told the justice system was blind. This report suggests it may have been peeking — and picking winners and losers based on politics and ideology. If even half of what’s detailed here holds up, the real scandal isn’t just how the law was enforced — it’s how easily trust in the system was bent. And once that trust is gone, good luck getting it back.