In King et al. v. Southern Poverty Law Center, the DIS argues that during King’s advocacy for legislative reform to curtail illegal immigration, the SPLC falsely designated it as a “hate group” in its annual Intelligence Reports published in 2018-2021, and falsely stated that King focused “on vilifying all immigrants.” However, the district court denied access to the SPLC’s internal editorial processes (emails, policies, methodologies) to see how it concluded DIS was a “hate group” and then faulted DIS for not having the evidence to prove its claims.
Liberty Counsel argues that unless discovery into the SPLC’s editorial processes is permitted and the evidence is properly considered, DIS’ actual‑malice claims will remain “impossible to prove,” contrary to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
“[DIS] lacked evidence because the district court denied them the discovery that would have produced it,” reads the brief. “At every stage, the evidence [DIS] needed was the evidence they were told they could not have.”
Liberty Counsel noted that a case is unwinnable, and a plaintiff cannot prove actual malice, “simply by asking hostile witnesses whether they acted with actual malice.”
Under Herbert v. Lando, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly allowed discovery into a defamation defendant’s editorial decision‑making to prove actual malice, making the district court’s decision a “reversible error.”
While the district court limited its analysis almost entirely to the SPLC’s 2021 re‑designation of DIS as a “hate group,” it completely ignored how the initial 2018 “hate group” designation suddenly emerged after years of the SPLC not labeling it as such.