Roy Moore asks Supreme Court to save $8.2M defamation award
Roy Moore, the former Alabama chief justice, asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to block a federal appeals-court ruling that wiped out the $8.2 million defamation verdict he won against a Democratic super PAC.
In an emergency application docketed as Moore v. Senate Majority PAC, Moore urged the justices to keep the verdict alive while he seeks full review, warning that he could lose any chance at the money if the lower court's order takes effect first, SCOTUSblog reported.
What the case is about
The dispute traces to Moore's 2017 campaign for the U.S. Senate seat vacated when Jeff Sessions became attorney general. Moore, a Republican, lost the special election to Democrat Doug Jones after misconduct allegations surfaced against him.
Senate Majority PAC funded a group called Highway 31, which ran a roughly $4 million advertising blitz against Moore. One television spot recounted accusations against him, including a claim by Leigh Corfman, who said Moore touched her sexually in 1979 when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. Moore denied the accusation.
Moore sued, arguing the ad falsely implied he had solicited sex from young girls. The ad stated that Moore was "banned from the Gadsden Mall ... for soliciting sex from young girls" and that "one he approached was 14 and working as a Santa's helper," according to an Associated Press report carried by WBRC. The woman referenced testified that Moore approached her and was probably flirting but did not solicit sex.
How the appeals court ruled
A jury sided with Moore, finding the PAC defamed him with "actual malice," the demanding standard the Supreme Court set for public figures in its 1964 decision New York Times v. Sullivan.
On April 25, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out that verdict. Writing for the panel, Judge Elizabeth Branch concluded Moore had not shown the required intent, calling the PAC's conduct a "negligent error at best" that "is not a basis for a finding of actual malice."
Ezra Reese, an attorney for Senate Majority PAC, called the decision a "total vindication of Senate Majority PAC," saying the group "told Alabama voters the truth," the AP reported.
The emergency request
Moore told the justices that the appeals court was set to issue its mandate "on or about" June 15, which would let the ruling take effect and release the $8.2 million bond securing the award. If that happens before the court can act, his lawyers wrote, the judgment "will be lost as a practical matter."
Justice Clarence Thomas, who handles emergency appeals from the 11th Circuit, had not yet ordered the PAC to respond as of Tuesday. Moore's filing also leans on a broader argument: that the actual-malice rule itself deserves a fresh look. It cites past opinions in which justices, among them Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, have urged the court to reconsider the Sullivan framework, quoting Gorsuch's observation that the doctrine began "in 1964 with a decision to tolerate the occasional falsehood."
Jeff Wittenbrink, a lawyer for Moore, framed the stakes in similar terms. "The Supreme Court may look at the whole doctrine of actual malice," he said, calling the reversal "an egregious overturning of a jury verdict of a public figure."
The case lands as the justices continue to field requests touching on speech and defamation; the court this term also declined to hear a gun-industry challenge to a New York liability law. For background on how speech-related suits are fought, see our explainer on how anti-SLAPP laws protect free speech.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Roy Moore ask the Supreme Court to do?
He filed an emergency application asking the justices to block the 11th Circuit's ruling from taking effect while he seeks full review, so the $8.2 million bond securing his verdict is not released first.
Why was the verdict thrown out?
An 11th Circuit panel found Moore failed to prove the super PAC acted with "actual malice," the standard required for public figures in defamation cases. It called the conduct negligent at most.
What is the "actual malice" standard?
Set in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), it requires public figures to show a defendant published a falsehood knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Who handles the emergency request?
Justice Clarence Thomas fields emergency appeals from the 11th Circuit. He had not ordered Senate Majority PAC to respond as of Tuesday.
Sources
Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.