A federal judge in Alabama has denied an effort by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to dismiss a case brought by the Trump administration, ruling the nonprofit failed to demonstrate that the Justice Department pursued the prosecution out of unconstitutional animus.
In a sharply worded order, U.S. District Judge Emily Marks criticized both sides for employing what she described as inflammatory language throughout the litigation, saying the rhetoric was “better suited for cable news, or a podcast.” Despite that criticism, the judge concluded the SPLC did not meet the demanding legal standard required to support claims of vindictive prosecution or justify additional discovery into the government’s motives.
Marks wrote that federal courts are not intended to serve as venues for resolving political disputes and emphasized that longstanding legal precedent places a significant burden on defendants seeking to prove prosecutors acted out of retaliation.
“Federal courts are not the proper forum for airing political grievances,” Marks wrote. She added that while prosecutorial decisions can be challenged if there is objective evidence of animus, criticism of the government alone does not provide constitutional immunity.
According to the ruling, the SPLC failed to produce the type of objective evidence necessary to show that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama, either independently or under outside direction, prosecuted the organization because it exercised its First Amendment rights.
The case stems from allegations by the Trump administration that the SPLC defrauded donors through its use of embedded informants inside white supremacist and extremist organizations. Prosecutors contend the nonprofit paid individuals who infiltrated those groups, arguing that those payments effectively provided financial support to organizations the SPLC publicly claimed it was combating.
The SPLC has firmly rejected those allegations. The organization argues the government’s claims are not supported by the indictment itself and has maintained that prosecutors misled the grand jury in order to secure charges.
The nonprofit has also consistently denied engaging in any conduct that undermined its mission of fighting hate groups. It says its donors were fully aware that the organization used informants to gather intelligence on extremist organizations.
Following the court’s decision, an SPLC spokesperson said the organization was disappointed by the ruling but pledged to continue defending its employees and its work.
“While the Southern Poverty Law Center is disappointed with the outcome of the motion, we will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, our staff and our work,” the spokesperson said Friday.
The organization added that it remains committed to combating hate and advancing what it described as a safer and more just society, insisting the Justice Department’s actions would not weaken its resolve.
The legal dispute comes against the backdrop of years of mounting tension between the SPLC and many conservatives over the group’s “Hate Map” and its classifications of various organizations. Among the groups included has been Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, which the SPLC said belonged on its list because Kirk had warned audiences they were being replaced by foreigners.
Shortly after Kirk’s death, the FBI ended its relationship with the SPLC, severing a partnership under which the nonprofit had shared intelligence gathered from monitoring extremist groups.
At the time, FBI Director Kash Patel sharply criticized the organization, saying the SPLC had abandoned its original civil rights mission and describing its “Hate Map” as a partisan tool that had been used to target mainstream Americans. Patel said the group’s record made it unsuitable for continued partnership with the FBI.
