SRL Files Amicus Brief Against Vindictive Prosecution

The Society for the Rule of Law has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, urging the court to permit an evidentiary hearing or discovery regarding prosecutorial motives in United States v. Southern Poverty Law Center. The brief expresses that the Society is committed to impartial law enforcement for all parties, regardless of lawful expressive conduct or ideology.  

Although the Society has not always concurred with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s rhetoric, actions, or tactics—many of its members have strongly objected to them—the Society nevertheless categorically opposes vindictive prosecution against any target.

The Society has been concerned regarding the recent erosion of internal norms in the Department of Justice and by the DOJ’s apparent application of prosecutorial power for retributive or vindictive purposes.  

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. The executive branch’s apparent disregard for these values, and for the constitutional guarantees that enforce them, is what brings amicus curiae before this Court.

The amicus brief advocates for the court to allow an evidentiary hearing or discovery, in order to determine whether the government’s prosecutorial decision has abided by legal and constitutional standards.

Here, the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”)  followed a path that has unfortunately become all too familiar in this presidential administration: disparaging public statements by senior officials, dismissal or threatened dismissal of top DOJ officials who were not sufficiently aggressive in bringing charges, and the President’s own public declarations that tie the prosecution to his political grievances. This Court should consider the full context in which this indictment arose and, at minimum, permit discovery into the government’s charging decision or convene an evidentiary hearing at which the government is required to demonstrate that this prosecution is grounded in law and evidence rather than the political objectives that the public record reflects.

Read the full brief here. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].

# # #