The nation’s highest court has turned down former Alabama chief justice Roy Moore’s request for review of a defamation case that once awarded him $8.2 million. By declining to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court leaves in place the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that vacated the jury’s verdict against Senate Majority PAC, the group that funded a 2017 television ad during Moore’s Senate campaign.
Background of the lawsuit
During the 2017 Senate race, Senate Majority PAC ran a television advertisement that juxtaposed statements from separate news reports, suggesting Moore had solicited sexual activity from under‑age girls at a shopping mall. Moore’s attorneys called the ad a “fabricated accusation, never made by any reporter,” and argued it was broadcast 533 times in the final days of the election.
In 2022, a federal jury agreed with Moore, finding the ad defamatory and awarding him $8.2 million in damages. The verdict was later challenged on the grounds that the plaintiff, as a public figure, must prove the defendant acted with actual malice. The 11th Circuit concluded Moore failed to meet that standard and vacated the judgment.
Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court’s denial of Moore’s petition means the appellate court’s decision stands. The Court’s action does not constitute a judgment on the merits of the case; it simply indicates the justices chose not to review the lower court’s findings.
Earlier, in June, the Supreme Court also rejected an emergency request from Moore to stay the 11th Circuit’s order while his appeal was pending. The recent denial reinforces that outcome.
Implications for political advertising
The ruling underscores the high bar public figures must meet to succeed in defamation suits involving political speech. By upholding the appellate court’s finding that Moore did not demonstrate actual malice, the decision reaffirms robust protections for political commentary, even when the commentary is sharply critical.
Senate Majority PAC, which funded the ad, maintained that the advertisement was truthful and defended its right to convey the information to voters. The Court’s inaction leaves that stance unchallenged at the federal level.
Roy Moore’s political legacy
Moore, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is known for his opposition to same‑sex marriage and his advocacy for the public display of the Ten Commandments. He lost the 2017 Senate race after allegations of past misconduct surfaced, including claims that he inappropriately touched a 14‑year‑old girl in 1979 when he was a 32‑year‑old assistant district attorney. Moore denied the accusations, and other women reported dating or being asked out by him when they were older teenagers.
While the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case does not alter the factual record of those allegations, it does close the legal avenue for Moore to seek monetary redress for the defamation claim.
Legal context
Defamation law in the United States requires public figures to prove that false statements were made with “actual malice” – that is, with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The 11th Circuit’s analysis found Moore’s evidence insufficient to meet that standard, a finding now left untouched by the Supreme Court.
Legal experts note that the decision reflects a broader judicial trend of protecting political speech, especially in the heated environment of campaign advertising. The outcome may deter future lawsuits that seek large monetary awards based on political ads, reinforcing the principle that robust debate is essential to a healthy democracy.
What’s next?
With the Supreme Court’s denial, the case is effectively concluded. Senate Majority PAC faces no further legal liability from this particular defamation claim, and Moore’s financial award remains null. The episode serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards that must be met to overturn political speech under the First Amendment.
Original reporting: Alabama News Network — read the source article.
