Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall announced May 11, 2026, that his office has opened a civil investigation into the Southern Poverty Law Center and issued a subpoena requiring the Montgomery-based nonprofit to produce documents by June 1, 2026 [1]. The investigation targets alleged deceptive fundraising practices under Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act [1].
The state action follows a federal grand jury's April 21, 2026, indictment of the SPLC on wire fraud and money laundering charges [1]. Marshall's office has indicated that the civil investigation centers on whether the SPLC used paid informants while concealing those payments from donors and the public, and whether that conduct constituted material misrepresentations in fundraising solicitations directed at Alabama consumers [1]. Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act authorizes the attorney general to investigate and seek civil remedies against entities that engage in unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce, including charitable solicitation [1].
The SPLC, headquartered in Montgomery, has operated for more than five decades as a civil rights litigation and advocacy organization and has raised hundreds of millions of dollars nationally through direct-mail and digital fundraising campaigns. The simultaneous exposure to federal criminal prosecution and a state civil investigation substantially broadens the organization's legal liability profile. The subpoena commands production of internal records relating to the informant program, donor communications, and financial disclosures [1]. No civil complaint has been filed in state court as of the announcement date.
Marshall's office characterized the investigation as a consumer protection matter rather than an ideological one, framing the subpoena as a routine exercise of statutory authority over charitable solicitation directed at Alabama residents [1]. The SPLC had not filed a public response to the subpoena or the announcement as of the date of the press release.
The June 1 document production deadline sets an immediate near-term marker. Should Marshall's office find sufficient evidence of deceptive practices, it could pursue civil penalties, injunctive relief, or restitution under state law, independent of the outcome of the federal criminal case. The convergence of state and federal proceedings means the SPLC faces parallel discovery obligations and potential conflicts between its litigation posture in each forum.