DAILY BS BULLETIN:
- A federal judge rejected the SPLC’s attempt to dismiss its fraud case as political retaliation.
- Judge Emily Marks found insufficient objective evidence that prosecutors acted vindictively.
- The organization denies misleading donors about millions paid to informants inside extremist groups; its federal trial is scheduled for October.
The Southern Poverty Law Center failed Friday to persuade a federal judge that the Trump Justice Department prosecuted it as political revenge, clearing another hurdle toward an October trial on fraud and money-laundering charges.
U.S. District Judge Emily Marks rejected the SPLC’s request to dismiss the indictment—or obtain additional discovery into the government’s motives—after finding that the organization had not produced the necessary objective evidence of prosecutorial animus.
🚨 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
Marks, a Trump appointee, also scolded both sides for indulging in “heated rhetoric, better suited for cable news, or a podcast.”
Federal courts are not the proper forum for airing political grievances.
The judge acknowledged that prosecutors can be second-guessed when evidence suggests an improper motive. She nevertheless concluded that criticism of an organization does not automatically immunize it from prosecution:
Two things can be true at once: critics are not constitutionally immunized solely because they speak frequently and prosecutorial decisions may be second guessed—if they evince some evidence of animus.
Marks found that the required evidence was missing:
Missing here is the requisite objective evidence to show that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama—on its own accord or at the direction of others—prosecuted the SPLC for exercising its First Amendment rights.
The ruling does not determine whether the SPLC committed fraud. It merely rejects the argument that the charges must be thrown out because they were brought vindictively.
“Orange Man’s AG Bad” doesn’t work in Judge Marks’ court either.
“The Court is not persuaded that a stray, later corrected remark warrants an inference of vindictiveness.” pic.twitter.com/RPNAwWWo2q
— Just Human (@realjusthuman) August 7, 2026
The SPLC pleaded not guilty to wire fraud, making false statements to a bank and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. No individual employees have been charged.
A superseding indictment alleges that approximately $4.1 million in donations was used to pay informants operating inside the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist organizations. Prosecutors contend the SPLC concealed those payments from donors and used fictitious entities and bank accounts to disguise the transactions.
The Justice Department originally described the operation this way:
Donors gave their money believing they were supporting the fight against violent extremism. As alleged, the SPLC instead diverted a portion of those funds to benefit individuals and groups they claimed to oppose.
The SPLC maintains that paying informants was legitimate investigative work—not support for extremism—and says law-enforcement agencies knew about and benefited from the information it collected.
Following Friday’s decision, the organization said:
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 SPLC added that the prosecution would not “shake our resolve to fight for justice.”
Its defense attorneys have accused the administration of conducting a “top-down, retributive campaign” against a longtime political adversary. They cited public criticism from Trump officials and alleged irregularities in the investigative process.
Prosecutors deny that politics drove the indictment. U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson previously said:
There was nothing vindictive about this prosecution.
The case follows years of conservative criticism of the SPLC’s “Hate Map” and its designation of conservative or right-leaning organizations alongside genuinely violent extremist movements. FBI Director Kash Patel severed the bureau’s relationship with the organization last year, calling it a “partisan smear machine.”
DBS WIRE SOURCES:
