The Southern Poverty Law Center pleaded not guilty again on Tuesday to federal fraud and money laundering charges over its paid-informant operations that allegedly involved the undisclosed use of donor funds to finance the group’s undercover activities.
On behalf of the SPLC, attorney Abbe Lowell entered a not-guilty plea at Tuesday’s arraignment to all 11 criminal counts of wire fraud, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit the concealment of money laundering, as outlined in the June 2 superseding indictment from the Justice Department.
The revised charging document, filed roughly a month and a half after an Alabama grand jury returned the initial April 21 indictment against the SPLC, contained the same charges but added new, specific allegations regarding how donor money was used to pay field operatives who were tasked with infiltrating and relaying intelligence about certain right-wing organizations.
Prosecutors say that the embedded sources, unbeknownst to donors, even promoted these extremist groups, which were largely losing influence, to justify the SPLC’s highly lucrative business of fighting bigotry.
For the charged offenses, the SPLC faces up to 30 years in federal prison, a $1 million fine, and any applicable order of restitution. U.S. attorney Kevin Davidson, however, noted during the arraignment hearing that the SPLC is “a corporate defendant” and would not be subject to imprisonment as the federal statute stipulates in most fraud cases.
Lowell clarified that the SPLC is “a nonprofit defendant,” not a for-profit corporation. Specializing in defending white-collar crimes, Lowell has served as a defense lawyer for many high-profile Democratic figures over the years, including representing New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) in her mortgage fraud case and former first son Hunter Biden at his federal gun trial. He also represented Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, during Trump’s first term.
At a status conference immediately following the arraignment, Lowell inquired about whether Magistrate Judge Kelly Pate would allow oral arguments on the SPLC’s motion to show cause, which would require Justice Department officials to answer questions at an evidentiary hearing pertaining to the release of the superseding indictment.
In the motion, Lowell accused the DOJ of “putting media strategy before the sacrosanct rules on grand jury secrecy” by leaking an unsigned, unstamped Microsoft Word version of a draft document to the press, with the subject line “Flagging: Superseding indictment returned by Grand Jury today re SPLC,” before unsealing a legitimate filing of the indictment.
Members of the media at the recipient outlets mentioned in their coverage that “a public copy of the superseding indictment was not yet available on the docket” and that the version in circulation was “not a final signed copy.” According to Lowell, no foreperson’s signature or stamp from the district clerk appeared on the draft distributed by the DOJ’s public affairs office.
Pate said that it is up to the court to decide whether to hold oral arguments or simply rule based on the submitted briefs. The federal government has until July 13 to file a written reply to the SPLC’s supplemental brief in support of its motion.
The parties also discussed scheduling a potential trial. Pate mentioned that the case should follow the original scheduling order, saying that jury selection is set to begin on the morning of Oct. 5, 2026, before Judge Emily Marks, a Trump appointee.
“We believe the motion [to show cause] has merit and we won’t need a trial date,” Lowell told Pate.
Lowell said that “if we get as far as a trial,” the defense intends to send a jury questionnaire in advance to determine “who may not even need to show up because of the strong feelings they may have.”
At another point in the hearing, Lowell asked whether the Justice Department wants to “change the charges in any fashion.” Davidson said the investigation is ongoing, “so I’m not sure how to answer that at this time.” He added, “We’ll go where the evidence and the law takes us.”
In response, Lowell lamented that the investigation has been “ongoing for quite a long time” and urged prosecutors to finalize charges, given the trial date tentatively scheduled for the fall.
“It would seem that the government could figure out whether there are any grounds to do anything more in the existing indictment at a date certain,” Lowell said. “So that we are not, just using a hypothetical, in the middle of September, and the government decides to bring some charges then.”
Pate said she is not aware of any deadline requiring the government to provide the defense with pending charging information. “We do have a trial date, and this case is going to trial on that date,” Pate said. “Or at least for that term beginning Oct. 5, as it seems now.”
PAXTON OPENS INVESTIGATION INTO SPLC AS JUDGE SETS TRIAL FOR FRAUD CASE
Lowell asked that the government announce in the “not-too-distant future” a definitive timeline for when prosecutors expect to complete the discovery process, citing concerns with “stragglers should there be new things discovered.”
Davidson said the government has turned over all releasable documents at this point and “liberally produced much, much, much more information” to the defense than prosecutors believe they are required to by law. He added that investigators are evaluating information as it comes in and continuing to comply with discovery obligations.