Appeals Court Overturns Roy Moore’s $8.2 Million Defamation Verdict
An appeals court dealt a major blow to former Alabama judge and Republican figure Roy Moore by overturning an $8.2 million defamation verdict he won against the Senate Majority PAC in a politically charged lawsuit. The ruling, handed down by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, confirms that Moore failed to prove that the super PAC acted with “actual malice” in a 2017 campaign ad that highlighted misconduct allegations against him.
The court vacated the substantial jury verdict and ordered the trial judge to enter summary judgment in favor of the PAC, ending Moore’s lawsuit over the now-infamous political advertisement that played a pivotal role in his failed Senate bid during Alabama’s 2017 race.
Malice Standard Not Met, Judges Rule
At the heart of the case was a TV commercial funded by Highway 31, a group backed by Senate Majority PAC, which ran a $4 million ad blitz targeting Moore. The ad referenced accusations including those from Leigh Corfman, who testified that Moore sexually touched her when she was 14 and he was 32—a claim Moore has denied. The commercial also included statements implying Moore solicited sex from young girls at a mall, which Moore’s legal team argued was false and defamatory.
U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote in the court’s opinion that the evidence showed at most “negligent error” but did not meet the strict legal standard of actual malice required to find defamation against a public figure. “The evidence discussed above is inadequate to support a finding of the necessary intent to defame,” Branch explained.
Moore’s Legal Team Weighs Supreme Court Appeal
Moore’s lawyer, Jeff Wittenbrink, expressed disappointment with the ruling and indicated the team is considering escalating the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court may look at the whole doctrine of actual malice,” Wittenbrink said, calling the decision an “egregious overturning” of a jury verdict.
Senate Majority PAC Calls Ruling a “Total Vindication”
Meanwhile, Ezra Reese, attorney for Senate Majority PAC, hailed the appeals court decision as a “total vindication.” Reese emphasized that the PAC’s ad was based on “accurate reporting from major national news outlets” and lauded the women who “bravely came forward” with their allegations against Moore. He asserted the ad truthfully informed Alabama voters who then rejected Moore’s Senate candidacy.
Broader Context of the 2017 Campaign and Legal Battles
The allegations against Moore, including Corfman’s and others involving relationships or dates with teenage girls, heavily influenced the 2017 Senate race in Alabama. Moore lost amid widespread public backlash. He and Corfman also faced separate defamation suits against each other where a 2022 jury found neither party proved its claims.
What’s Next
With the appellate court’s decision, the defamation case against Senate Majority PAC is effectively over unless Moore pursues further review with the Supreme Court. The ruling reinforces the high bar for defamation plaintiffs who are public figures and highlights challenges in litigating political speech cases.
This legal development continues to resonate nationally as it concerns free speech, election politics, and accountability for public allegations. For South Carolina readers and across the U.S., the ruling signals court support for robust political discourse, even amid highly contentious and emotional subjects.
