The indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges this week is the start of what could become not just a major criminal prosecution but a major constitutional challenge. At issue is whether the Center’s secret operations to enlist and pay informers constituted fraud of its donors.
The center has long been controversial after drifting away from its early litigation against segregation and becoming more of a partisan organization targeting conservative organizations. I shared that criticism after the center went after groups such as Focus on the Family for opposing LGBTQ values.
It also drew outcries after focusing on Turning Point in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024”.
The federal indictment alleges that the Center improperly paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups without disclosing the payments to donors. The Center insists that these were confidential informants and that law enforcement was informed of the results of these operations when they shared evidence with local and federal agencies.
The indictment cites pitches to donors that failed to mention that millions were given to figures in hate groups while pledging that “Your support powers our work to confront hate, stand up to injustice, and defend our civil and human rights. From the courtroom to the classroom to communities across the country, you can help create a more just and inclusive future for all.”
It is rare to see a private organization engaged in such clandestine operations, using confidential sources the way that the FBI does with drug and other criminal organizations.
Some of what is described in the indictment is surprising and, frankly, could form the basis for civil action by the targeted groups. For example, I was surprised by this graph in the indictment:
“F-9 was affiliated with the neo-Nazi organization, the National Alliance and C. served as an F for the SPLC for more than 20 years. F-9’s activities included fundraising for the National Alliance. Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-9 more than $1,000,000.00. In 2014, F-9 entered the headquarters of a violent extremist group and stole 25 boxes of their documents. F-9 coordinated payment for the copying of the materials with a high-level SPLC employee who had knowledge the documents had been stolen. The original stolen materials were returned to the violent extremist group in a second illegal entry by F-9.”
This individual was allegedly paid a million dollars for such services. The Center does not have any special authority to commit such acts. It reminds me of the cases involving media organizations.
Courts have previously held that reporters do not have any special privilege to commit trespass and may be sued for such offenses. In Food Lion v. ABC, a store was shown in an undercover segment engaging in unsanitary practices, and Food Lion was accused of selling rat-gnawed cheese, meat past its expiration date, and old fish and ham that had been washed in bleach to mask the smell. Food Lion denied the allegations and sued ABC for trespass. A jury ruled against ABC and awarded Food Lion punitive damages in an investigation into ABC journalists lying on their application forms and assuming positions under false pretenses. (here). The Fourth Circuit, however, wiped out the punitive damage award while upholding the trespass and breach-of-loyalty verdicts, with awards of only $1 for each.
There is also a case out of the Seventh Circuit. Judge Richard Posner wrote the decision in Desnick v. ABC, where investigative reporters went undercover in 1993 to show that employees of the Desnick eye clinic had tampered with the clinic’s auto-refractor, the machine used to detect cataracts, so that the machine produced false diagnoses to find cataracts (and require procedures). The court rejected wiretapping claims (based on the state’s one-party consent rules) as well as trespass and defamation claims. On trespass, the court noted that the reporters were allowed into areas open to new patients. Posner relied on the consent to the entry to negate the trespass claim even when the entrant “has intentions that if known to the owner of the property would cause him . . . to revoke his consent.”
In this matter, there was no Desnick-like claim in entering non-public areas and removing material. A valid civil action alleging trespass and other claims could be raised. Moreover, the affected groups could potentially allege a tolling of the statute of limitations given the secrecy of the operations.
Setting aside such civil litigation, this will still be a challenge for the Justice Department. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News that the investigation was begun under the Biden Administration but then suddenly terminated.
The action is likely to draw serious constitutional challenges over free speech and associational rights. The Center can argue that it was clear that they were targeting racist groups by any means necessary. While they did not discuss such clandestine operations, they will argue that the operations were still used to attack these groups and share information with law enforcement. The Center is also likely to raise selective prosecution claims.
The government has a tough case, with the alleged fraud used to produce evidence submitted to state and federal prosecutors. In addition, if this case extends into a new administration, a Democratic Justice Department could scuttle the case as did the Biden Administration.
Once again, it is remarkable to read the extent to which the Center acted like a mini-FBI in running its own confidential informants and allegedly conducting a “black bag job.”
The unfolding prosecution is likely to shine a light on the tactics used by the Center. It could also further define the constitutional protections for such organizations in using such novel and controversial means.
Here is the indictment: United States v. Southern Poverty Law Center
To me the fascinating part about this is the unmentioned reaction by the targeted groups. When news got around, there must have been some powerful lot of explaining going on. In capable hands, this story has the makings of a best seller and movie.
While, in my opinion, the SPLC long lost any claims to objectivity (see for example their opposition to Turning Point) I am skeptical of the validity of the DoJ’s case. It would be interesting to know the rationale for Merrick Garland quashing this investigation.
Prof. Bartfast Sez:
Almost Ditto. And didn’t we warn you, back in the 70s, that the SPLC was a smelly piece. I can remember delivering news articles about the phony accusations of racism brought out of thin air by SPLC.
I sound like a broken record, but yes – the SPLC, the ACLU, even the AMA et. al. – all are captured and useless, and many have been saying so for some time. No one with two brain cells to rub together thought ‘Patriot Front’ was anything but paid for propaganda, and meanwhile the SPLC is giving money to *actual* white supremacy groups, at a time when their numbers are marginal and on the decline (last time I checked, the official, active membership of the KKK could not fill a football stadium. The Aryan Youth is even smaller. They are useless idiots whose time has passed, and I used to have run-ins with the cro-mag Aryan sh**s as a younger person. Given the KKK is a dem brainchild, I have to further think the party is not nearly as populated as they claim. Just well-funded and well represented by a complicit media)?
Seriously – the modern left are a kind of corrupt and disgusting I don’t even know how to wrap my head around anymore, and I say again: as an unaffiliated voter, I used to vote for them. Never, ever, again. I will say, with my real name, unlike the rando, ‘Trump supporters’, who turn out to be Canadian, that I deeply regret voting for Obama in his first term. He and his cohort unleashed hell on this country like no one in an official capacity before him.
James,
The SPLC is just another form of grift. By the accounts of the indictment, they had to gen up the “white supremacists” narrative to keep the money flowing to them. Heck, they even paid one of the leadership of the Unite the Right protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. How twisted is that?
@Upstate
It’s twisted beyond belief. To foment those actual hate groups for personal benefit – it almost isn’t human. I had two friends beaten within an inch of their lives by those cretins the SPLC have paid back in the day – this is not a game. Young communists who grew up in perfect peace and prosperity, which incidentally, we created for them, are too young to realize what they are doing, do not understand this. The elders coddling them are just using them, and that is likely worse.
The fact that you think the KKK population needs to be > ~0.03% of the US population to be relevant is pretty scary (assuming a southern college football stadium like UT of about 100K, which would be the most notable in the KKK’s founding state.
To put it in perspective, at the movement’s height in the ’60s, it was likely never more than half of that (35K to 55K), which is why your comment is not a serious take.
@Anonymous
Sorry, but no.
The SPLC did nothing wrong. Covert action does happen in non-profits, PETA does it, and so do anti-abortion groups. Their donors were not misled.
Funding racists while proclaiming to fight them is misleading and the covert action is for law enforcement.
@Sally
You are on a roll. It’s an a$$-backward roll, which makes me think you are very young, paid, or both, but you go, girl.
Sally obviously does not mind if any readers here break into your house and steal her stuff while she’s not home. If she raises the stink about it just show her this post here.
Break into her house , not your house
In the old days, if a police officer violated procedure to obtain evidence, a liberal judge would throw out the evidence. I don’t believe in nitpicking law enforcement, but I also believe a $1 penalty is an invitation to trespass by interested parties.
The power to trespass at will and violate privacy is also the power to plant evidence. The ends don’t justify the means, not even for holier-than-thou liberals. Give them all three branched of the federal government and it’s game, set, match.
Thanks
This will be a complicated case.
Regarding the fraud on donors, the defense will be that the funds were paid to informants to help in the fight against the organisations. The SPLC will provide evidence of the information they received. The recipients could be witnesses, for either side depending on the facts.
On bank fraud and money laundering, that will depend on what was said to the banks when the accounts were established.
My guess is that this will not work out well for the DoJ, but who knows.
Daniel
I disagree, the Grand Jury has found the evidence compelling enough to indict and the DOJ/FBI will now dig in for the kill. The perpetrators will be prosecuted and some will be offered deals to testify against their pals. They will be looking at some serious time guilty or not, they will squeal and turn on the main figures who will end up be convicted with their testimony and the rest of the evidence. It will go quickly.
I can’t wait for Obama’s trial, now that would be true justice. There’s a reason why James Clyburn immediately tried to remove the death penalty from treason when Obama was elected.
So far, no individuals have been indicted.
You may be right, and DoJ may win, but it’s not going to be easy, especially on the defrauding donors charge. If they have compelling testimony from the recipients of the funds that the SPLC was doing more than just paying for information, that would be a big help. Without that it will be a hard case to prove. Probable cause from a grand jury is a lot easier than no reasonable doubt from a unanimous jury.
That outta take some of the wind out of all the race-baiters’ sails. Manufactured division in the United States. the least racist country on earth.
Let’s ask the residents of Gaza how racist or not is the US.
You go ask them, we’ll wait for you. Maybe you can get a ride on Gretta’s sailboat. Sleep on your back though.
Dear Mr. Turley, thank you for the great article. I have to agree with GEB’s comments. I have always wondered just what the SPLC was up to? Then once Mr. Trump was elected their philosophy became clear. Everyone and everything related to the Republicans became a “hate group”. To me, they are the epitome of a “hate group”. It is my hope that the FBI will be able to shine a light on these people. As always within groups like this who proclaim their own righteousness, there will be someone who will “squawk” and give up the family secrets.
“this graph” seems like a bunch of numbers and punctuation. It must be a “paragraph”.
Do you see now why my proposal for Public Frauds lawsuits might make sense?
If we had that type of lawsuit, these investigative sleuths would not have to go undercover to penetrate the wall of secrecy they feel needs to be dismantled in the public interest. Instead, they would file a public frauds lawsuit, and then exercise power of subpoena and compelled deposition. The overall effect would be to keep people honest.
Public Frauds courts would be putting a moral stake in the ground clearly announcing that honesty is not only the best policy, but that lying, duping the public, and cover-ups will be quickly exposed with overwhelming legal force — and not worth it. It would be a refreshing sign of moral clarity, stepping away from a creeping gutter-culture of “gaming” norms for convenience and advantage.
Gutter-culture top to bottom, left to right and gaming systems until they’re stopped.
Just like some folks terrorists are known as ‘freedom fighters’ so are the SPLC’s agitators faux labeled as ‘informants’ right? Can’t drum up donations from low IQ rich woke types unless you have a viable boogeyman and that takes putting more wood on the bonfire! But SPLC just needs to get the case moved to a BLUE state with a ‘friendly’ judge and voilà the case will be dismissed for no reason at all.
It will be interesting to learn why the investigation was shutdown under Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray?????? My guess, it was going after the one party and discovered that part of “their” operation was tied into the SPLC operation……..Follow the money…….
I predict the SPLC will fundraise off this. Then they’ll drag it out past the next election and the charges will be dropped. The Republicans will press just hard enough to say they tried and the whole affair will be dropped. It seems like the administration refuses to go full Letitia/Fani on these scoundrels. It’s almost as if the Republicans are satisfied with the crumbs the Dems toss them. Watching the wealth of Democrat allies grow exponentially is probably encouragement enough.
Reminder
German lawyers and jurists played a critical role in the Nazi rise to power
Democrats are clearly brownshirt fascists….and need to be ABOLISHED for this their 2nd CIVIL WAR
Reminder
American lawyers and jurists played a critical role in the MAGA rise to power
The “left” is a terrorist organization and you’ve given them too much credit by naming them brown shirts, guy.
I might not have every detail straight, so take this as a working read of what DOJ is saying.
As I understand it, SPLC was using donor money to bankroll illegal activity by paid insiders in these hate groups, and then hiding that reality from the very people who thought they were funding civil rights lawsuits and education, not criminal break ins.
On top of that you have the state action question. If SPLC ran these black bag jobs on its own and then surprised prosecutors with the files, you have a private outfit breaking the law, but the evidence probably still comes in. If they were really acting as a carve out for the government, with officials knowing and letting it happen, then those same break ins start to look like unconstitutional searches by state actors, and now you are in fruit of the poisonous tree territory as well as straight criminal exposure.
That is how I see the indictment at this point, and I am happy to be corrected on any of it.
I might not have every detail straight, you say? You never get any details straight. You just make-up inanities and pretend to be smart.
You are not a lawyer – its obvious. So why are you here then?
A pompous response from an “Esq”….that is rich.
Sounds like ANON talking “You are not a lawyer “. Roger Hunt another ANON alias??
OLLY,
Agreed.
Gotta let this one play out and see where it goes.
Federal grand jury charges Southern Poverty Law Center with fraud over hate ratings
“The SPLC is a nonprofit entity that purports to fight white supremacy and racial hatred by reporting on extremist groups and conducting research to inform law enforcement groups with the goal of dismantling these groups,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told a news conference attended by CBS News. “The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/justice-department-launches-criminal-investigation-against-southern-poverty-law-center
Let’s see if farmer really understood what olly wrote, although olly admitted to not knowing what he wrote.
So farmer, can give us a synopsis? Answer: “Let it play out? ” That’s some pretty deep thinking you got there.
Upstate wants to hear the women testify under oath how Rep. emeritus Erectus drugged, choked, and raped them before proceeding with expulsion. Because innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or committee something.
Only one woman claimed that criminal misconduct. Why do you overstate the grievance? One instance is vile and repugnant — it doesn’t need inflating.
He drugged, choked, and raped them, respectively. I hope they find his dealer and his drugs.
Marcus and Creekan 2 more PHONY names!!??
Olly,
Great post.
Now I wonder if the SPLC to FBI channel was running only one way.
Could the FBI been participating in SPLC strategy planning?
Could they have been sending assignments to the SPLC?
It is TIME to punish people who USE government money to fund political hit jobs!
Also if a “non-profit” provides anyone with $100k+ of benefit…you should PAY ALL YOUR TAXES
The SPLC took donations from the PRIVATE sector. Great insight though.
They are alleged to have taken “money from the private sector” by setting up fraudulent shell companies and donating their own monies back to themselves, ergo fraud and money laundering. These monies were then distributed to their insiders at specific “hate” groups to create racial tensions and division that they could exploit for profit. I can’t wait to see their involvement in Ferguson…
Again, for the slow kids in the class: PRIVATE SECTO, so says the DOJ in the indictment. Good enough for all conservatives.
Fact: They took my money and I’m “private sector”. Even got receipts. “Allegedly” you say?
So you’re not upset, and in an effort to try to simplify things for a simple mind; In addition to receiving private donations, the SPLC is alleged to have set up shell companies to illegally launder money to fund insider individuals at specific hate groups to create racially divisive schemes for the group to exploit for their own benefits such as fund raising and other political purposes.
The government brought the facts of their investigation to a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury found sufficient proof in those facts to indict the Group. The investigation continues and will now zero in on the individuals that have been involved in perpetrating the alleged crimes.
“These monies were then distributed to their insiders at specific “hate” groups to create racial tensions and division that they could exploit for profit.”
That is the point that I think has yet to receive adequate attention in discussions of the indictment and exposure of the SPLC practices. It may or may not have important legal ramifications (IANAL) but to me it is a crucial moral point. How much damage may the SPLC done to the people in whose interests they were allegedly acting, by deliberately funding and fomenting hatred against those very people?
Was SPLC creating the crime? For donations?
The core contradiction in this column lies in how the legal standard for “investigative tactics” shifts depending on the organization’s ideology, particularly when compared to Turley’s past defenses of groups like Project Veritas. While Turley frames the SPLC’s use of confidential informers as a “clandestine” and “remarkable” overreach akin to a “mini-FBI,” he has historically defended nearly identical undercover tactics by Project Veritas as a form of protected, aggressive investigative journalism.
For a conservative-leaning group, the use of false identities and infiltration is often presented as a vital tool for exposing institutional bias, yet when the SPLC employs the same methods to infiltrate extremist groups, Turley reframes the behavior as a potential “black bag job” lacking “special authority.”
This inconsistency extends to the legal theory of fraud used in the indictment. Turley validates the claim that the SPLC defrauded its donors by failing to disclose that their contributions funded paid informants. However, if failing to detail specific, controversial investigative budgets to donors constitutes criminal fraud, organizations like Project Veritas would be equally vulnerable under the same logic. By treating the SPLC’s donor pitches as fraudulent while previously viewing similar “citizen journalism” fundraising as a First Amendment right, Turley applies a double standard to the transparency required of non-profit organizations.
Furthermore, Turley’s treatment of the “selective prosecution” defense reveals a bias in how he views the role of the Justice Department. He acknowledges that the SPLC will likely claim they are being unfairly targeted, yet he characterizes their specific actions as uniquely surprising and worthy of prosecution. This contrasts sharply with his frequent warnings of “lawfare” when right-leaning investigative groups face legal scrutiny for their undercover operations.
By treating the SPLC as a legal anomaly rather than part of a broader, established tradition of undercover ideological investigation, the column fails to apply a consistent constitutional philosophy to the right of private groups to “infiltrate” and “expose” their targets.
You would think by now Turley would be more skeptical of the DOJs claims given the fact that the courts don’t take DOJ at its word as much as it used to because of the constant lying to the courts and subsequent successful vindictive prosecution cases like Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Core contradiction you say? Its obvious you didn’t understand the article X.
Its about time a light and legal action/investigation shine on SLPC. If I recall they were used as a basis to go after Catholics/Church. The Gov’t needs to look closely at SLPC’s entire organization including funding and MGMT etc. financial incentives.
Gee, an investigation of criminal activity by a far-left extremist organization like SPLC was abruptly terminated by the Biden regime. What a shock. There has been no more corrupt and partisan “justice” department than the Garland DOJ. What a raging disaster he would have been if he’d made it onto the Supreme Court. Time for leftwing extremists like the SPLC to face true justice for funding the very groups they promised to combat, while squawking about how far-right extremist groups were thriving. How ironic.
The SPLC has had a sketchy history for the last few years and has been sued and lost some cases because of smears propagated by them. The Professors presentation glosses over that some of the charges allege the payments may not have been just for investigations but also providing financing of opposing organizations so they could act as a target for the SPLC. Not an unknown event in history.
Sort of like staging a coup and then using your response to protect the nation by becoming even more authoritarian like Erdogan in Turkey 2016, or calling a riot an insurrection and coup. But that could never happen here, now could it?
Bless Their Little Hearts.
Glosses over? You just repeated his points you silly goose. I mean how much detail do you need? Its an opinion blog.
Suggest you read other sources to understand the matter more thoroughly and then come back here and tell us all about it.
GEB,
Thank you for pointing out the comparisons. Well said.
Comparisons? Education much?
Here’s a bigger word you can use for later: analogy.
We are now at the point where political or philosophical disagreement equals racism. The alarming part of that is that there are weak minded people who believe that stuff.
The things people will do for money … I’m convinced that the SPLC knew what they were doing all those years was legally and ethically wrong. That people believed it is not unsurprising.
Of course they knew, they didn’t care as the ends justify their means.
Of course they knew, … that’s what anon wrote. Great catch though.
Is it racist to manufacture racism in in the name of racism? for profit?