The Justice Department declined an opening from a Washington, D.C., federal judge to weigh in on whether abortion is constitutionally protected under the 13th Amendment .

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton who is presiding over a criminal case, asked parties last month to submit filings on whether the Supreme Court considered the totality of the Constitution in its overturning of Roe v. Wade last summer, which held that the 14th Amendment does not confer a right to abortion.

FEDERAL JUDGE SUGGESTS 13TH AMENDMENT LOOPHOLE TO SUPREME COURT'S DOBBS ABORTION RULING

Kollar-Kotelly's request was in a case involving anti-abortion activist Lauren Handy, who is charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by blocking access to an abortion clinic. The defendant asked the judge in January to dismiss the case, arguing she shouldn't face charges under the law because they were premised on abortion being a federal right.

A court filing by the DOJ on Friday posited that it can still enforce the FACE Act under Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce and that the judge "need not" determine whether a right to abortion exists in any portion of the Constitution. The agency asked the judge to deny Handy's motion to dismiss the case.

“The Court need not consider, let alone decide these issues to resolve the pending motion, as doing so is not necessary to answer the straightforward jurisdictional questions before the Court,” attorneys for the DOJ wrote. “Put simply, the Court need not reach whether the Thirteenth Amendment — or any other provision of the Constitution — protects a right to abortion or that Congress had authority under anything other than the Commerce Clause to enact the FACE Act.”

In February, the judge asked the DOJ to submit their arguments by March 3 on whether the summer 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is confined to the 14th Amendment and "whether, if so, any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion as an original matter … such that Dobbs may or may not be the final pronouncement on the issue, leaving an open question."

Handy is among nine others who were charged with obstructing access to a clinic and conspiracy against rights prior to the high court decision.

An attorney for Handy wrote to the judge that since Roe was overruled, "there is no longer a federal constitutional interest to protect, and Congress lacks jurisdiction. For the same reason, the Court here does likewise."

Handy's response to the DOJ submission is due by March 17.

The Washington Examiner contacted Handy's attorney for comment.