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:
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.
