Some excerpts from a long opinion by Judge Emily Marks (M.D. Ala.) Friday in U.S. v. Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc.:
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.
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. 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." 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….
A quick summary of the allegations against the SPLC (see here for more):
