Court Rejects SPLC Motion To Dismiss Based On “Vindictive Prosecution”
“The SPLC has failed to offer some evidence tending to show animus on the part of the prosecutors involved in bringing this case and that such animus resulted in the prosecution”
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is under indictment for allegedly defrauding donors by funding members of the KKK and neo-Nazi groups, including attendees at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, while soliciting donation based on fighting those groups. In the course of that scheme, SPLC also allegedly committed bank and wire fraud, including lying to banks when questioned about suspicious transactions.
It’s almost surreal:
- DOJ Alleges Southern Poverty Law Center Funneled $3 Million to White Hate Groups
- Superseding Indictment Alleges SPLC Funded “Ku Klux Klan garments” and “Cross-Burning Events”
- SPLC Fundraised Off Of Charlottesville, Didn’t Disclose Its Role
- SPLC Boss Accused of Funneling $1.2 Million to Informant Lover in Neo-Nazi Group
We have been covering SPLC’s shady fundraising tactics for 15 years, We discovered 15 years ago SPLC was “creating fictitious hate so that they could then fundraise off of it”:
”
SPLC not only denies the charges, it claimed it was the victim of vindictive prosecution. We covered SPLC’s motion to dismiss, SPLC Wants Indictment Thrown Out For “Vindictive Prosecution”.
The court just ruled on the motion, and not only refused to throw out the case, the judge refused to allow SPLC to take discovery as to the DOJ’s reasons for bringing the case:
🚨 A federal judge denied the Southern Poverty Law Center's bid to dismiss its criminal indictment on claims of vindictive prosecution, allowing the case to move forward. The court also refused to let the SPLC obtain discovery into the Justice Department's prosecutorial motives. pic.twitter.com/d7DeRAqVBg
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) August 7, 2026
From the Court ruling:
This dispute concerns the Government’s—specifically, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama’s—decision to indict the Southern Poverty Law Center. The parties present diametrically opposed accounts of that decision. The SPLC contends that it is being vindictively prosecuted at the behest of various political actors—including the President of the United States—for engaging in speech protected under the First Amendment. (See doc. 49-1 at 6, 26–38). To remedy this alleged constitutional wrong, the SPLC moves for dismissal of the indictment or, in the alternative, discovery into the Government’s prosecutorial motives. (Id. at 38–44). The Government opposes the SPLC’s motion in its entirety, asserting that “this indictment was secured based on the law and the facts uncovered during a federal investigation.” (Doc. 68 at 2). The parties’ briefing is, like much of our modern political discourse, heavy on heated rhetoric, better suited for cable news, or a podcast. It emphasizes noise over substance.
After filtering out the noise, the Court is left to decide only whether the Government’s decision to prosecute the SPLC was constitutionally impermissible. On this record, the SPLC is not entitled to discovery or dismissal of the indictment. The SPLC has failed to offer some evidence tending to show animus on the part of the prosecutors involved in bringing this case and that such animus resulted in the prosecution, the showing required for discovery. Because it cannot satisfy that standard, it necessarily fails to satisfy the higher standard that would entitle it to dismissal of the indictment. Accordingly, the SPLC’s motion is due to be denied.
The ruling is worth a full read, it’s chock full of details including many of Trump’s verbal and social media attacks on SPLC dating back to Trump 1.0.
For now, the case moves forward.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Vindication Prosecution. Gee just prove you didn’t break the law. You didn’t did you? If not then no problem. If you did then I suggest you make a deal and start singing who gave you your marching orders,
Constitutionally, they don’t have to prove they’re innocent. The government has to prove their guilt.
This was just a “Throw anything at the wall and see what sticks” filing. They know they”re hosed.
That’s not how it works. The government has to prove they did break the law. But to get it dismissed, they have to prove the government is acting only for illegitimate motives. The court said they hadn’t done that. “The SPLC has failed to offer some evidence tending to show animus on the part of the prosecutors involved in bringing this case and that such animus resulted in the prosecution.” That Trump hates them is not enough; they’d have to show that the specific prosecutors involved hate them.
“vindictive prosecution”
How boringly Saul Alinsky of the SPLC jerks.
LOL. They don’t know what to call it because they don’t have a leg to stand on. They could have said frivolous, or weaponized, or racist but it wouldn’t matter.
Could it do an end run around this by declaring the DOJ a hate group?
SPLC has been a boil on America since the late 80’s. All that money and you wonder how it was spent. A full IRS audit to go along with the lawsuit is needed. This has been a money laundering operation for at least 3 decades. Money comes in and somehow ends up off shore. As a 501c3 that’s highly suspicious. I dislike 501c3 and c4’s. Maybe all of them should be audited.
Longer. It was founded in 1971, so for over a half century. They didn’t take long to get greedy and stray from their founding ideals.
They did this, now they can own it. They might have to vacate their high priced digs and go back to that little, old office building in Montgomery down the street from the Alabama Capital where they were decades ago.
.
They did some necessary work in the early years. Then they ran out of legitimate ‘dragons’ to slay. So like nearly every other civil rights org they began grievance grifting by shifting to amorphous targets created out of thin air by the doctrine of CRT. As the shady grifters took power they couldn’t help themselves from a little looting/pillaging of the organization’s finances b/c once you’ve cast yourself as the hero/MC of your fantasy of slaying fictional ‘dragons’ (read extortion) then you obviously deserve to get paid a little extra.
Agree 100% on audits for these ‘charities’. If they stepped a millimeter over the line in any way from disallowed activities to lack of internal control to submission of false financials or failure to submit required docs on time… break up the org, fine them, put the officers and directors in prison.
My elder sis was an RN who upon graduation (St Joseph’s School of Nursing) got her 1st job out of state (NY) at a hospital in Vermont. Now this was ~4 decades ago – but she lived there long enuf to know the state. Now about 2 decades ago (after moving back homewards) she and I were talking about the SPLC’s much touted “Hate Group List” and she said in her opinion the Vermont portion was….. at best….. not very well researched. Thing to keep in mind that while I’m an (R) myself she was a lifelong Liberal (D) and in fact an avid Bernie Bro/Sis – so when she tells me a Liberal group has got something wrong I tend to believe it’s not bias but likely factual.
According to her, they were listing “groups” and “newsletters” that were 1-nutjob shops – and multiplying into multiple separate entries things that were one group or even only 1 loner nutjob. As well as listing as “active” old disbanded and / or renamed groups – which certainly ran the numbers up.
So I suspect even before they commonly started depicted mainstream opinion as hate speech and they were serving as crowdfunding to subsidize actual “hate groups” while fundraising to oppose those selfsame HGs they were cooking the books to inflate the numbers and severity of why you needed to raise money and pay their top executives ~$500.000 a year.
The ruling as quoted here says, “The SPLC has failed to offer some evidence tending to show animus on the part of the prosecutors involved in bringing this case and that such animus resulted in the prosecution, the showing required for discovery.”
I’m intrigued. Do the words “some evidence” actually mean “any evidence whatsoever”?
I think it does. But it has to be about the specific prosecutors involved, not about Trump or DOJ in general. And that evidence has to also show that “such animus resulted in the prosecution”, i.e. they would not have been prosecuted if not for it.
How refreshing when the system works the way it should.
Speaking of refreshing—
It’s refreshing Todd Blanche was confirmed. It was very close. Susan Collins–a democrat in Republican garb–voted to confirm Merrick Garland but not Todd Blanche.
Paula, good morning. I tend to enjoy most of your comments, thank you.
Isfoss I agree refreshing.
I offer this small filing: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohsdce/2:2026cv00343/310634/36/
This is a small Ohio filing, basically “Lying About Party Affiliation is Not Protected Speech.”
I am truly hopeful that we are coming to “refreshing” and actionable.
Thank you. I enjoy your comments also.
Not really. Lying is protected speech; Mr Ronan is entitled to insist till he’s blue in the face that he’s a Republican, and no law may prevent him. But he’s not entitled to be listed on the ballot as one, or to participate in a Republican primary.
Maine ain’t Mississippi. Collins is in an election contest in an, at best, lean blue State. Same place where the Nazi SS totenkopf tattoo guy overwhelmingly won the d/prog primary. Her ‘no vote’ while not great is probably exactly where her electorate is. By contrast Murkowski of Alaska a far more red State also voted no on Blanch but yes to Garland. As did Tillis of NC.
The Senate GoP is far better off with Collins holding a seat from Maine than for the d/prog to pick up another Senate seat. She’s about as ‘conservative’ a Senator as can win a statewide general election in Maine. The same CAN NOT be said for Murkowski (up for re-election in ’28) or Tillis (retiring to avoid being primaried) Cornyn of TX or Cassidy of LA both of whom got themselves un-elected by losing their primaries.
Agreed
Also, they let Collins vote against when they have the 50 votes they need to protect her “middle of the road” image.
Murkowski is vindictively against this admin and when she votes with Repubs is only to protect her own reelection chances.
Agreed. Excellent point.
Thanks. Collins is sometimes frustrating but so is her electorate. IMO we spend too much energy being upset/surprised about Collins on a few votes, admittedly some important ones but then somehow consistently overlook Murkowski, Cornyn, Cassidy, Tillis or Lankford. All those Senators in DC often vote on legislation, procedures and in committee very differently than they campaigned and much less ‘conservative’ than their State. The standard should be to demand these Senators at least match the level/degree of ‘conservative’ votes as their electorate/base. No more ‘evolving’ should be tolerated without a legitimate, well funded primary challenger to attempt to unseat them. Hopefully the example of Cassidy and Cornyn getting tossed aside will serve to deter some of the DC establishment mischief.
Aren’t all prosecutions, “vindictive”?
Dear MarkS, “words” are so slippery these days.
A Basketball thug clotheslines a player and it is privileged.
The word basketball in this case is questionable, not close to 1851 James Naismith.
I rather agree with angrywebmaster above, “throw anything….”
Useful conversation is so difficult.
I have decided I am definitely OWaP… Old, White and Polite.
(I am hoping there are some YWap, young white and polite, but I do not hold my breath.)
No, most prosecutions are not vindictive. None should be. A prosecutor should have no ulterior motive, and should be bringing the case only because he honestly believes the defendant is guilty, and that he can prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Did the SPLC file this motion out of desperation? No. This motion indicates the lawyers are doing their job — even though they knew it would be denied. So why file it in the first place?
To establish an appeal. SPLC is arguing vindictive prosecution is shown by statements made public by the president, AG, FBI, etc. This opens the opportunity during trial to catalogue other evidence of political motivation from testimony or exhibits. If there is a conviction, the SPLC can appeal using the initial reasons in the pre-trial motion and add to it the evidence that came out during the trial. The appeals court rules that SPLC met their burden to prove vindictiveness. The verdict can be reversed as a politically motivated prosecution, which is unconstitutional. These lawyers are earning their multi-million dollar legal fees.
Yeah they are. On the other hand we can fantasize about the SPLC defendants and their attorneys being put into chairs in a vacant warehouse while some psycho tunes in the radio to K-Billy’s super sounds of the ’70s before he shows each of them what vindictive actually means.
They’re also in the court of public opinion, playing ot the cheap seats that it’s a persecution not a prosecution.
— Filed that motion gets heard as there was vindictive prosecution
— Motion rejected only reinforces the notion it’s corrupt
The fact of the motion works al by itself as an “action” crafted so that action plus response moves one or more cohort of agreement in the direction they want.
I’ve thought about it; prayed about it; and I feel pretty good about it: I WANT vindictive prosecution of the SPLC.
Let’s go.
ALL of their (SPLC’s) prosecutions are vindictive. They wrote the book on it. Now they are spending millions on projection. Pure projection.
ALL these groups have a tell: when what they actually do is about getting the bad guys, vs. helping the good guys … it ain’t about the hunting as the bear says.(*)
(*) If you know the joke, you know…