LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The American Freedom Law Center’s (AFLC) long-running dispute with Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel is back in the spotlight. The group says Nessel crossed a constitutional line when her office leaned on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s controversial “hate group” list to guide state policy and public messaging.
In their filing against Nessel and the Director of Michigan’s Department of Civil Rights, the AFLC says, “The U.S. Constitution does not permit the Michigan Attorney General (“AG”) and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (“MDCR”) to weaponize their government offices to target political opponents.”
MORE NEWS: Legal Fight Erupts Over Palisades Nuclear Reboot Plan
The AFLC asserts that in February of 2019, Nessel and the MDCR Director issued a press release that was posted on the official government website of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. In this official public statement, defendants posted a hyperlink to the “hate map” of Michigan that was produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). AFLC is on their hate map as “anti-Muslim.”
According to the AFLC’s press release, their lawsuit alleges that the “challenged policy directive violates AFLC’s fundamental rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by unlawfully targeting AFLC for disparate treatment based on AFLC’s political views and the political views of those it represents in court.”
The suit ties directly into Attorney General Dana Nessel’s Hate Crimes Unit because AFLC argues that Nessel amplified the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” label through that unit’s official communications. By endorsing SPLC’s designation, the group claims, Nessel effectively used the authority of her Hate Crimes Unit to brand them as extremists, damaging their reputation.
Appeal lands at Sixth Circuit.
The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where the AFLC is asking a three-judge panel to grant oral arguments in its appeal. After losing in federal district court, the AFLC is urging the appellate judges to review the case and consider what it calls the “reputational harm” caused when Nessel endorsed the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of the group as a “hate group.”
The district court dismissed the case because it decided that AFLC did not have standing. The judge ruled that AFLC had not shown a sufficiently concrete injury caused by the attorney general’s actions, finding that the harms AFLC described – reputational damage, chilled speech, and financial impact – were too speculative or not directly traceable to the state.
AFLC says the judge ignored undisputed evidence showing the aforementioned claims and argued that the district court contradicted its own earlier ruling, which had recognized those injuries as real and that the “hate group” label came with threats of investigation and surveillance. They go on to say that the state’s continued use and retention of the “hate group” designation in government records makes the harm ongoing and redressable.
A lawsuit four years in the making.
MORE NEWS: Jan. 6 Protester to Dearborn City Council: ‘Get the **** Out of Our Country’
After years of delays – including pandemic slowdowns and procedural stops that have kept the case from reaching full review – the long-running fight may finally be inching toward a real hearing.
At its core, the dispute raises a broader question: should state officials be allowed to lean on private advocacy groups when crafting government messaging? AFLC argues that when the state adopts those outside classifications, it effectively transforms private opinions into official labels – labels the government can cite at arm’s length while still using them to shape their own narratives and public perception.
