First Amendment Implications of U.S. Army Labeling Operation Rescue, Pro-Life Groups, and “Choose Life” Plate Owners as “Terrorist Groups”

As we shared previously, a recent and alarming example of government overreach occurred in the fall of 2024, when Biden’s Department of Defense labeled pro-life groups as terrorist organizations. The U.S. Army at Fort Bragg (briefly renamed Fort Liberty during the Biden Administration) trained soldiers to view pro-life groups – including our client, Operation Rescue – and possibly anyone with a “Choose Life” license plate as “terrorist groups.” This revelation was both shocking and deeply troubling, as it directly threatens our fundamental constitutional rights.

If you have already seen the slides (here), you know they are indeed shocking.

But when one considers the First Amendment implications of the slides, they are actually much worse than they first appear, as they label constitutionally protected speech as terrorism.

Let’s take a closer look at what the U.S. Army considered “terrorism” or acts of terror at the former Fort Liberty under the Biden Administration:

Words and attempts at persuasion are equated with terror. Yet almost all of the categories listed on that slide (excluding violence) are constitutionally protected free speech, including:

• ANTI-ABORTION (Right to Life and Operation Rescue)
• Pro Life
• Oppose Row [sic] v Wade
• Types of Advocacy
• Demonstrations and Protest
• Mass Demonstrations
• Life Chain
• The Rescue
• The Truth Display
• Picketing
• Counseling
• Sidewalk
• Crisis Center
• License Plates

The slides list any speech that opposes abortion as terrorism.

Confusing speech and violence are contrary to both common sense and the law. We argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court that opposition to abortion is not discriminatory. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 269 (1993) (Rejecting the claim that opposition to abortion is discrimination against women in violation of the constitutional guarantee of just and equal law, i.e., invidious discrimination.)

It gets worse.

Sidewalk counseling is also constitutional, and the ACLJ has also argued this in court.

In Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W. N.Y., 519 U.S. 357 (1997), the ACLJ argued and got “floating buffer zones around people entering and leaving the clinics” struck down as a violation of the First Amendment.

There the Supreme Court said:

The floating buffer zones prevent defendants – except for two sidewalk counselors, while they are tolerated by the targeted individual – from communicating a message from a normal conversational distance or handing leaflets to people entering or leaving the clinics who are walking on the public sidewalks. This is a broad prohibition, both because of the type of speech that is restricted and the nature of the location. Leafletting and commenting on matters of public concern are classic forms of speech that lie at the heart of the First Amendment, and speech in public areas is at its most protected on public sidewalks, a prototypical example of a traditional public forum.

Obviously, “Truth Display,” “Life Chain,” “Mass Demonstrations,” and “Picketing” are different ways of “[l]eafletting and commenting on matters of public concern . . . .” – all protected First Amendment activities that the Biden military considered “terrorism.”

These rights are long recognized in constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent. In Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), the Court held that the right to picket is protected by the First Amendment and struck down a statute forbidding picketing. The “Truth Display,” “Life Chain,” and “Mass Demonstrations” are protected under the same rule.

Both the presenters of this Army training and the pro-abortion Left disagree with these constitutional rights. They believe that constitutionally protected attempts at persuasion are terroristic. But they are wrong.

Thankfully, the Secretary of the Army has since acknowledged by name that Operation Rescue is not a terrorist group and stated that this training “inaccurately referenced non-profit public advocacy organizations National Right to Life, Operation Rescue . . . as terrorist groups, which is inconsistent with the Army’s Antiterrorism policy and training.”

We will continue to apprise you as additional FOIA documents are delivered to us through our FOIA.