Judge blasts lawyers in Trump admin lawsuit: ‘Better suited for cable news’

A federal judge has sharply criticized lawyers in a criminal case brought by the Trump administration, saying that the rhetoric from attorneys on both sides was more appropriate for “cable news.”

The remarks by U.S. District Judge Emily Marks of the Middle District of Alabama came as she rejected the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)’s bid to dismiss the Trump administration’s allegations of fraud, ruling that the civil rights organization failed to show that prosecutors were motivated by animus toward the group.

But she blasted both sides, saying their legal arguments were not appropriate for a federal courtroom.

“The parties’ briefing is, like much of our modern political discourse, heavy on heated rhetoric, better suited for cable news, or a podcast,” Marks wrote in her ruling. “It emphasizes noise over substance.”

Newsweek contacted the White House and SPLC on Saturday via online forms for comment.

Judge Rejects SPLC’s Vindictive Prosecution Claim

The SPLC had asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the prosecution was vindictive and motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility toward the organization and its speech.

Marks rejected that argument, finding that the SPLC had not met the legal standard required to establish that the Justice Department brought the case because of unconstitutional animus.

The Trump-appointed judge also rejected the SPLC’s request for discovery into the government’s motives.

“Federal courts are not the proper forum for airing political grievances. For that reason, the doctrine of vindictive prosecution places a heavy burden on the accused, and decades of precedent counsels against its application here,” Marks stated in her ruling. “Two things can be true at once: critics are not constitutionally immunized solely because they speak frequently and prosecutorial decisions may be second guessed—if they evince some evidence of animus.

“Missing here is the requisite objective evidence to show that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama (on its own accord or at the direction of others) prosecuted the SPLC for exercising its First Amendment rights,” Marks wrote in the order.

The ruling does not decide whether the SPLC is guilty of the underlying charges. Instead, Marks was considering whether the prosecution itself was constitutionally improper.

The SPLC had pointed to public criticism of the organization by President Donald Trump, FBI Director Kash Patel and other administration figures as evidence of hostility. It also argued that an investigation involving the organization had been revived after being closed during the Biden administration.

But Marks found that the evidence presented did not establish that any alleged animus among administration officials had infected the prosecutors responsible for bringing the case.

SPLC Faces 11 Criminal Counts

As previously reported by Newsweek, the Justice Department charged the SPLC with 11 counts in April. The charges include six counts of wire fraud, four counts of making false statements to a federally insured bank and one count of conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.

A superseding indictment filed in June retained the same 11 counts.

The government has alleged criminal wrongdoing by the organization, while the SPLC has denied the allegations and characterized the prosecution as politically motivated.

“While the Southern Poverty Law Center is disappointed with the outcome of the motion, we will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, our  staff  and our work,” an SPLC spokesperson said Friday, as reported by The Hill.

“SPLC will continue to fight hate, and we will continue to envision and create a safer and more just world. The actions by the DOJ will not shake our resolve to fight for justice and ensure the promise of the Civil Rights movement becomes a reality for all.”

The court’s latest ruling means the criminal case will continue rather than being dismissed at this stage.

Judge Criticizes Both Sides

Marks repeatedly took issue with the political tone of the dispute.

In addition to criticizing the parties’ briefing, she faulted both sides for what she described as personal attacks and arguments made through public statements rather than legal evidence.

The judge noted that the parties had engaged in what she characterized as “ad hominem attacks” through press releases, interviews and social media posts.

She emphasized that federal courts are not the appropriate venue for political grievances and said the court’s role was to apply the relevant legal standards to the evidence before it.

Marks also noted that “President Trump’s rhetoric is (rather famously) wide-ranging” and that “he has undoubtedly been critical of the SPLC. However, the SPLC fails to establish that President Trump’s statements evince animus on the part of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.”