The entire Houck family continues to suffer from ‘severe emotional distress’ after the early morning armed FBI raid on their home, two lawsuits say.
Pro-life activist Mark Houck and his wife are suing the Department of Justice (DOJ) over its treatment of their family during his harrowing arrest at gunpoint.
The Houcks filed their lawsuits on Nov. 6, seeking damages for assault, false arrest, abuse of process, malicious and retaliatory prosecution, and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Mr. Houck, a Catholic and a father of seven, was arrested at his home in East Greenville, Pennsylvania, early on Sept. 23, 2022, when his family awoke to find a group of heavily armed FBI agents at their front door.
The arrest stemmed from an October 2021 altercation between Mr. Houck and an elderly Planned Parenthood clinic escort—an incident in which local authorities chose not to bring charges.
More than a year later, however, the DOJ charged Mr. Houck with twice violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law that prohibits violent and threatening conduct intended to interfere with an individual’s right to “seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.”
A jury acquitted Mr. Houck of those charges in January. But according to the complaints—filed by the Graves Garrett law firm—he and his family members continue to suffer “severe emotional distress” brought on by his arrest and the fight for his freedom.
“These government agents intentionally sought to assault Mr. Houck and deprive him of his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him on non-violent charges when he had not threatened law enforcement, did not own a gun, and had offered to turn himself in to authorities if indicted,” one of the complaints notes.
During the raid, agents reportedly pointed their weapons at the activist’s wife, Ryan-Marie Houck, and their children—an act that the lawsuits allege was meant to inflict emotional distress.
Mr. Houck’s complaint also charged that the indictment against him was riddled with factual errors and false statements that could only have been adopted by a grand jury if the DOJ had presented the facts in a malicious way or concealed critical and material information.
