A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center, ruling that the organization’s designation of the Dustin Inman Society as an “anti-immigrant” hate group constitutes protected opinion rather than a verifiable statement of fact.
Although granting a legal victory to the SPLC, the judge’s determination further undermines the supposed authority the organization once held until the FBI severed ties with the group in 2025.
U.S. District Judge Corey Maze concluded that the plaintiffs could not meet the legal standard required to prove defamation, writing that they “cannot prove actual malice” in the SPLC’s labeling of the immigration enforcement group.
The ruling allows the SPLC to continue publishing its hate map designations. Still, it also reinforces a position the organization advanced during the litigation: that its hate group labels are subjective judgments not capable of being proven true or false.
During the case, the SPLC argued that its “anti-immigrant hate group designation is not capable of being proved false, but is an opinion expressed as part of a political debate,” a claim central to Judge Maze’s decision.
The Dustin Inman Society filed the lawsuit, a Georgia-based advocacy organization focused on opposing illegal immigration, and its founder, D.A. King, who passed in March of 2025. King maintained that his organization opposed illegal immigration policy rather than immigrants themselves, noting that immigrants served on the group’s board and were part of his own family.
Judge Maze acknowledged that a jury could have found the SPLC’s characterization inaccurate on its face but ruled that defamation law requires proof of the speaker’s state of mind. Even if the designation relied on broad or contested interpretations, the court found the SPLC was legally protected because it claimed to believe its own definitions.
The SPLC cited King’s public remarks, funding sources, and support for stricter immigration laws in justifying its designation. The court accepted the organization’s argument that generalizing opposition to illegal immigration as hostility toward immigrants amounted to “rhetorical hyperbole” shielded by the First Amendment.
The case had previously survived an early challenge. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins allowed the lawsuit to proceed to discovery, a move critics hoped would expose how the SPLC applies its hate labels. After discovery was completed, Judge Maze ruled the evidence did not support a defamation claim.
The "Southern Poverty Law Center" is more like the Southern Poverty SLANDER Center.
It blasts @Moms4Liberty & @MomsForAmerica as "extremists" while excusing actual violent extremists like Antifa, which it calls: "individuals organizing against…injustice.”
The SPLC is a scam: pic.twitter.com/BBb8dMzV3k
— John Stossel (@JohnStossel) August 10, 2023
Conservative author Tyler O’Neil, who has written extensively on the SPLC, said the ruling underscores the organization’s long-standing reliance on subjective classifications rather than factual determinations.
The SPLC did not respond to requests for comment. Attorneys for the Dustin Inman Society and King’s estate also declined to comment.
Founded in the 1970s, the SPLC rose to prominence litigating against groups such as the Ku Klux Klan before expanding its focus to tracking what it defines as extremist organizations. It now lists nearly 1,400 groups on its hate map, including mainstream political and advocacy organizations.
In recent years, the SPLC has faced increasing scrutiny over its designations. In 2018, the organization paid a multimillion-dollar settlement and issued an apology after wrongly labeling the Quilliam Foundation as anti-Muslim. More recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ended its formal relationship with the SPLC, citing concerns about credibility and politicization.
While the SPLC prevailed in court, critics said the case further clarified that the organization’s influential hate labels are rooted in opinion rather than objective fact — a distinction that continues to shape debates over how the group is used by media, government agencies, and advocacy organizations.
