Once you get out of Washington, D.C. and a few other areas, federal judges have much less patience for the legal shenanigans that President Trump’s opponents regularly pull. That’s one reason why having the prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering venued in Alabama, not in D.C. or in the Southern District of New York, is such a huge plus.
Advertisement
The judge assigned to that case, United States District Judge Emily C. Marks, ruled Friday against SPLC’s motion to dismiss the indictment, in which it argued 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.” The group also sought discovery, including production of internal DOJ communications and an evidentiary hearing; that was also denied.
Marks ruled that SPLC “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 standard to allow discovery, and that by failing to meet that standard it necessarily failed to meet the higher standard required to dismiss the indictment.
SPLC’s theory of vindictive prosecution as laid out in its filings was just that, Marks said, a “rough outline of a theory” for which the group “expected the Court to fill in the blanks,” which is not the Court’s job. SPLC’s theory, as best it can be understood, sought to link…
- Pre-indictment statements by people like President Trump, FBI Director Kash Patel, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and others,
- The re-opening of a 2019 investigation that was closed under the Biden administration,
- An October 2025 FBI report criticizing SPLC’s Hate Map, and
- a “Post-indictment media blitz” by Trump, Blanche, and Dhillon,
Advertisement
… as evidence of prosecutorial vindictiveness by the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Middle District of Alabama. Marks observed, “The SPLC’s submissions stack speculation upon conjecture, relying upon hypothetical links in assumed chains to show prosecutorial vindictiveness.”
She was pointed in criticizing the lack of intellectual heft SPLC brought to its motion, saying at the beginning of the 36-page memorandum and order:
“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.”
She elaborated a bit in her conclusion:
“This case typifies modern American discourse. It is unsurprising that the parties’ arguments primarily comprise what has become all too common: ad hominem attacks in the form of press releases, interviews, and social media posts. Opponents of past, current, and future administrations may full-throatedly protest the decisions made by those in power. But our Republic recognizes different venues to vindicate different wrongs; federal courts are not the proper forum for airing political grievances. For that reason, the doctrine of vindictive prosecution places a heavy burden on the accused, and decades of precedent counsels against its application here.”
Advertisement
You can tell that Judge Marks is just tired of where this kind of litigation has gotten to today. Can’t blame her. pic.twitter.com/zEMSv4fsfG
— Ethan Savka (@eesavka) August 7, 2026
At this time, trial in this matter is set for October.
The complete memorandum opinion and order can be read below.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.