Conservative and Libertarian Legal Experts Warn Against Politically Motivated Federal Prosecutions
Amicus Brief Highlights Political Motivations Behind DOJ Case Against Southern Poverty Law Center; Urges Court to Examine Circumstances Surrounding Indictment
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A group of conservative and libertarian legal experts, represented by the States United Democracy Center and Battle & Winn LLP, filed an amicus brief in United States v. Southern Poverty Law Center, a case before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The brief supports the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) request to dismiss a federal indictment.
In April, federal prosecutors charged SPLC with fraud and money laundering. The SPLC has denied the allegations and asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it was targeted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for political reasons and that the prosecution violates the organization’s constitutional rights.
The brief argues that prosecutors in the Justice Department have long relied on rules and professional norms to ensure cases are rooted in facts and the law, not politics. It warns that those systems have weakened under the Trump administration—as evidenced by public statements from administration officials and the departure of career DOJ attorneys—and asks the court to examine how the case against SPLC came about.
“The American people should be able to trust that criminal cases are brought by DOJ because the facts and the law support them—not because of politics,” said Sam Trepel, Senior Counsel and Rule of Law Program Director at the States United Democracy Center and former Justice Department prosecutor. “When there are signs that political pressure may have influenced a decision to prosecute, the courts serve as an important check on the executive branch, and where appropriate, can make sure those cases don’t move forward. It’s imperative that the courts uphold the principle that no one—not even the President—can abuse the justice system to target their political opponents.”
The brief specifically asks the court to consider the full context surrounding the prosecution and, at minimum, permit discovery or hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the indictment was politically motivated.
The brief was filed on behalf of the Society for the Rule of Law, a national membership organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers and other like-minded constitutionalists who prioritize the defense of the rule of law, the Constitution, and American democracy above their partisan and policy preferences.
Key excerpts from the brief include:
“Prosecutors wield immense power whose misuse causes devastating and often irreversible harm to targeted individuals and organizations, and to the rule of law itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances exists to ensure that prosecutorial power is applied rationally and objectively, insulated from partisan or other inappropriate influences. When that system is bypassed and the Justice Department is turned into an instrument of political retribution, the values that the Society holds dear and that the rule of law requires are placed in jeopardy: an impartial criminal justice system, free speech, due process, equal protection, and the ability to petition the government without fear of retaliation.”
“Prosecutorial power, like all government power, must be exercised within principled limits. To that end, DOJ has established policies to ensure that prosecutors who exercise significant discretion and power do not act from “malice or other base motives” or allow their decisions to be improperly influenced by political leaders. In these ways, DOJ and its federal prosecutors have themselves traditionally served as an important check on the abuse of prosecutorial power.”
“Whatever the ultimate merits of the underlying charges may prove to be, the full sequence of events—public denunciation by a high-ranking DOJ official, congressional pressure, dismissing the Attorney General for insufficient prosecutorial vigor, an indictment announced alongside the very official who had previously disparaged the target, and the President’s own celebratory framing of the charges in overtly political terms—presents precisely the kind of circumstantial record that courts have recognized as bearing the hallmarks of a prosecution whose neutrality cannot be assumed.”
Read a summary of the brief and the latest updates on the case here.
###
About the States United Democracy Center
States United is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the rule of law and free, fair, secure elections. We provide direct support to state officials and law enforcement leaders as they uphold the law and our system of checks and balances, protect public safety, defend elections, and preserve our democracy. For more information, visit statesunited.org.