Full Breakdown
Appeals Court Overturns $8.2 Million Defamation Award for Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore
4/25/2026, 10:55:25 AM
Court Ruling (Core Event)
On April 24, 2026 the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the $8.2 million jury verdict for Roy Moore, holding that, as a public figure, he did not satisfy the “actual malice” requirement for defamation.
Background & Timeline
The case arose from a 2017 SMP TV ad in Moore’s Senate race that paired news reports of sexual-misconduct allegations with a claim he was “banned from a Gadsden mall for soliciting sex from young girls” and mentioned a 14-year-old “Santa’s helper.” Nine women, including Leigh Corfman, had earlier accused Moore. Moore sued in 2019; a 2022 jury awarded $8.2 million; the 2026 appeal reversed it.
Key Figures & Groups
Roy Moore (plaintiff); Senate Majority PAC (defendant); Judge Elizabeth L. Branch (author); attorneys Jeffrey Wittenbrink (Moore) and Ezra Reese (SMP).
Data & Statistics
- Defamation award vacated: $8.2 million.
- Accusers referenced in media: nine women.
- SMP’s 2017 ad campaign cost: $4 million.
Why It Matters
The decision reaffirms the high “actual malice” bar for public-figure defamation claims, limiting political ads that rely on existing news reports and shaping future First-Amendment litigation. The outcome may affect how future political campaigns cite media reports without risking defamation liability.
Official Statements & Responses
SMP’s Ezra Reese said the ad was based on accurate reporting and “told Alabama voters the truth.” Moore’s lawyer Jeffrey Wittenbrink expressed disappointment and noted a possible Supreme Court petition.
Criticism & Opposition
Moore’s team argues the ad falsely implied solicitation of a minor; opponents say the ruling weakens accountability for misleading political ads.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the accuser count—some cite nine women, others say multiple. SMP calls the implication unintentional; Moore claims it was deliberate.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Moore is a public figure, and he failed to present clear and convincing evidence,” — Judge Elizabeth L. Branch
- “The conventional wisdom is that a public figure can’t hardly get a judgment for defamation,” — Jeffrey Wittenbrink, attorney for Roy Moore
- “This ruling is a total vindication of Senate Majority PAC and a complete repudiation of Roy Moore’s pathetic seven-year effort to weaponize the courts to launder what little remains of his reputation,” — Ezra Reese, Elias Law Group partner
- “The Supreme Court may look at the whole doctrine of actual malice, because this is really an egregious overturning of a jury verdict of a public figure,” — Jeff Wittenbrink
What’s Next
Moore’s counsel plans to file a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, while scholars anticipate the decision will be cited in future challenges to the “actual malice” standard. If the Supreme Court grants review, the case could become a landmark test of First-Amendment protections for political speech.
