LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – What began in 2019 as a press release about tracking hate crimes has turned into a long-running legal battle for Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel and the MDCR (Michigan Department of Civil Rights) – and years later, it’s still playing out in federal court.
A federal civil rights lawsuit, filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on February 28, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, centers on the state’s reliance on data from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), including its controversial “hate group” designations on their “hate map.”
The label that sticks – even without an explanation.
MORE NEWS: America Turns to the Bible — And President Donald Trump Is Among Those Reading
The SPLC has labeled the AFLC an “anti-Muslim hate group,” a designation that remains on its website today. However, the SPLC does not provide a direct explanation or supporting detail for that label on the AFLC’s listing. The closest context comes from a profile of David Yerushalmi – who is a key figure behind the organization as its co-founder and current senior counsel of the organization. The SPLC calls him an “anti-Muslim activist who is a leading proponent of the idea that the United States is threatened by the imposition of Muslim religious law, known as Shariah.”
The SPLC’s criticism of Yerushalmi, an Orthodox Jew, centers on his writings and advocacy, which they say promote broad claims about Islam and Muslims and contribute to what they classify as anti- Muslim extremism – an assessment that underpins their broader labeling of groups connected to him, including AFLC.
Inside AFLC: A legal push for faith and founding principles.
That critique sets the stage for a starkly different view from inside the AFLC organization itself – one that frames its work not as extremism, but as a constitutional and cultural defense grounded in core American principles. According to the AFLC’s website, their mission is to “fight for faith and freedom through litigation, education, and public policy programs.” They go on to say, “AFLC seeks a return to America’s founding commitment to receive God’s continued blessing to preserve the soul of this great Nation. AFLC is first and foremost a public interest litigation firm. It aggressively seeks to advance and defend our Nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage in courts all across our Nation.”
When a “hate map” is used for state policy.
That mission statement isn’t just background – it’s central to the legal fight now playing out in court. Back on February 2, 2019, Nessel’s office and the MDCR rolled out a hate crimes initiative that referenced SPLC’s hate map in their reports, effectively amplifying those labels with the weight of state government behind them. AFLC filed their federal civil rights lawsuit against Nessel and the MDCR soon afterward, claiming that endorsement crossed a constitutional line – turning political labeling into government-backed targeting.
The AFLC filed an amended complaint on March 12, 2019 adding additional allegations, which include a statement posted by Nessel on her Facebook page shortly after the lawsuit was filed. The AFLC says that Nessel demonstrated her political bias by stating on Facebook, “Only in Trump’s America do you get sued for pledging to prosecute hate crimes and pursue organizations that engage in illegal conduct against minority communities. I will never back down on my commitment to protect the safety of all Michiganders. Bring it.”
The state’s stamp of approval: Michigan elevates SPLC in policy and practice.
Michigan didn’t just reference the SPLC in passing. The MDCR has acknowledged using SPLC data alongside other sources to get a “snapshot” of activity across Michigan. That connection was further underscored when the department hosted a hate crimes conference on September 141, 2023, featuring Michael Lieberman, the SPLC’s Senior Policy Counsel for Hate and Extremism – highlighting the state’s continued engagement with, and validation of, the organization.
Status of lawsuit.
MORE NEWS: Cutting the Red Tape: Michigan House Backs Plan to Keep Foster Kids with Family
A federal district court previously sided with the state, dismissing the lawsuit on standing grounds. But AFLC appealed – and that’s where things stand now. The case is currently before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court will determine whether the lawsuit can move forward or if the state’s victory stands.
But AFLC isn’t just arguing legal technicalities – they’re also trying to show the damage in dollars and cents. In a March 25, 2026 filing, AFLC asked the appeals court for permission to add new evidence to the record. The claim? The state left out key financial data showing the real-world fallout of their “hate group” label.
Specifically, AFLC says:
- Donations dropped after the 2019 announcement
- That drop proves actual harm – not just hurt feelings
From “watchdog” to defendant.
The timing of resolve the case couldn’t be worse for the SPLC or for the state of Michigan. The SPLC is now facing fresh national scrutiny after a federal indictment announced on April 21 by the U.S. Department of Justice, which charges the organization with multiple criminal counts tied to its handling of donor funds. According to prosecutors, the case centers on allegations that the SPLC misrepresented aspects of its operations while raising money, including how those funds were ultimately used.
A federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, returned an indictment charging the SPLC with 11 counts, including wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Federal prosecutors allege the group funneled more than $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to individuals connected to extremist organizations – including the Ku Klux Klan and neo- Nazi groups – as part of a confidential informant program. The indictment claims those payments were not fully disclosed to donors, raising questions about transparency and whether contributors were misled about how their money was being used.
The SPLC has denied the allegations as “false,” insisting its work complies with the law and defending its long-standing efforts to monitor extremist activity – efforts it says have helped save lives.
Political motives.
The indictment of the SPLC is also intensifying longstanding criticism that the organization’s widely cited “hate map” functions less as an objective tool and more as a political instrument. Critics maintain that it operates with a clear ideological lean, arguing it aligns more closely with Democratic priorities than with the role of a neutral civil rights watchdog. In December 2025, House Republicans convened a hearing to examine the organization’s activities, alleging coordination with the Biden administration to target Christian and conservative Americans.
All of this leaves the AFLC’s case against Nessel and the MDCR hanging on a sharper edge than when it began. What started as a dispute over labels now collides with new questions about the credibility of the source behind them.
