Civil rights groups on Wednesday condemned the criminal indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, saying it threatens civil rights and civil liberties and warning that the legal case could test their resources. The Justice Department said the indictment is tied to what it described as a longtime informant network that the SPLC used in extremist groups, and it charged the nonprofit in federal court in Alabama. The case, announced with the announcement of charges, has prompted immediate calls among activists about how to respond as judicial proceedings begin.
In calls held soon after the indictment, advocates discussed how to support the SPLC, a Montgomery, Alabama-based organization founded in 1971 that has tracked white supremacist groups and has been outspoken on voting rights, immigration and policing. Organizers said they expected heightened legal scrutiny and talked about the need to win in the court of public opinion as the case moves through the system.
Vanita Gupta, a former associate attorney general of the Justice Department during the Biden administration, said the government’s goal is often to shut down and paralyze an organization by forcing it to defend itself. Gupta told participants that the hope was that a broad effort to defend the SPLC would prevent that outcome. Other legal advisers urged civil rights groups to prepare for similarly aggressive actions, including protracted legal battles that could exhaust resources and trigger audits of staff and internal documents.
Gupta and others described the response as a marked mobilization among activist groups that, they said, have been at odds with the federal government since Donald Trump returned to the White House. Organizers said the flurry of coordination included dozens of public statements of support and planned rallies tied to the indictment.
Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the indictment is an “attack on civil rights and civil liberties” and that the coalition would not “go silent.” Without addressing the indictment in a direct way, a coalition of more than 100 activist groups published a letter pledging solidarity with groups it said are “unjustly targeted” by the federal government, and SPLC signed the pact. The coalition declared: “An attack on one is an attack on all,” and said, “We will share knowledge, resources, and support with any organization threatened by abuses of power.”
On the government side, the Justice Department alleged that the SPLC violated federal law through its network of paid informants in extremist groups, saying payments funded hate groups and misled the SPLC’s donors. The SPLC now faces charges of wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in a case brought in the federal court in Alabama, where the organization is based. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the SPLC was “manufacturing racism to justify its existence” and promised the department would “hold the SPLC and every other fraudulent organization operating with the same deceptive playbook accountable.”
Longtime civil rights activists and group leaders disputed that characterization. Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, called the indictment “nakedly political” and said it represented the Justice Department turning on itself. Morial said the charges put the Justice Department in a posture that would effectively defend white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Other leaders also viewed the indictment as part of what they described as a broader upending of civil rights law and of Justice Department prosecutions directed at political opponents.
Norm Eisen, founder of Democracy Defenders Action, argued that the indictment’s framing was misleading. Eisen said the government’s account essentially claims SPLC committed a fraud on its donors for using funds to fight the Klan, Neo Nazis and other white supremacist groups, adding that people gave money specifically for that purpose. Eisen also disputed the government’s view of informants and said the approach was akin to “the stock and trade of the FBI itself,” arguing that the use of informants and protecting their identities is tied to preventing white supremacist violence.
On the other side of the debate, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which SPLC has designated as a hate group, said the government should pursue not only convictions but also restitution for those the SPLC harmed. Perkins said in a statement that SPLC had used its platform to label and target organizations it disagreed with, which he said blurred legitimate concern and ideological attack and “has put lives at risk.”
The cluster of public reactions also referenced the FBI’s earlier decision to end longstanding anti-extremism partnerships with SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League. In October, FBI Director Kash Patel canceled the partnerships and called SPLC a “partisan smear machine,” according to the AP account. The Justice Department and SPLC did not respond to requests for comment.
As the legal fight begins, civil rights organizations said they have begun preparing for potential follow-on scrutiny. They described reviewing document retention, tax compliance and auditing policies over the last year to safeguard against probes or lawsuits. Some also discussed the possibility of creating new organizational structures that could better withstand scrutiny, including ideas raised on calls about restructuring into for-profit entities or creating new financial conduits for donors in the event assets are seized or frozen.
For some leaders, the SPLC indictment signaled a return to prior eras when federal authorities monitored civil rights groups to disrupt their activities. Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, said the Justice Department has been “weaponized by dangerous forces,” and Juan Proaño, CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens, warned that organizations could be in jeopardy as the case unfolds and that officials were looking for a “chilling effect.” Other leaders maintained that their support for the SPLC would continue as the government pursues the charges and the defense prepares its response.