Full Breakdown
Eleventh Circuit Overturns $8.2 Million Defamation Award for Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore
4/25/2026, 11:42:06 AM
Court Ruling Overturns $8.2 Million Defamation Award
On April 24, 2026, Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated $8.2 million jury verdict that had favored former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore in his defamation suit against Senate Majority Political Action Committee (SMP). Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Elizabeth L. Branch held that Moore, as public figure, failed to meet the “actual malice” standard, showing only a negligent error, not reckless disregard of truth. The decision underscores high bar of actual malice for public-figure defamation claims in political speech.
Background of the 2017 Ad
During Moore’s 2017 Senate campaign, SMP aired a TV ad citing news reports that Moore had sexually abused underage girls in 1990s as a district attorney in Etowah County. The ad implied he pursued a 14-year-old “Santa’s helper” at a Gadsden mall. Allegations first appeared in Washington Post story and were corroborated by eight women.
Parties and Litigation Overview
Moore sued SMP for libel; his counsel included Foundation for Moral Law and Wittenbrink Law Firm, led by Jeffrey Wittenbrink. SMP was defended by Elias Law Group and Dominick Feld Hyde PC, with Ezra Reese as lead counsel. The case progressed from the 2017 ad to Moore’s 2019 filing, a 2022 jury award of $8.2 million, and April 2026 appellate reversal by Judges Elizabeth L. Branch, Frank M. Hull, and Jill A. Pryor. The dispute involved nine women’s accusations and marked Moore’s fourth federal defamation loss.
Official Positions
SMP said the ad relied on accurate reporting and any “Santa’s helper” implication was unintentional. Moore argued the 14-year-old claim was not in any news report and that SMP acted with actual malice. The appellate court found only a negligent error, insufficient for liability. Moore’s team may seek Supreme Court review or rehearing before Eleventh Circuit.
Criticism
Jeffrey Wittenbrink said the prevailing view is that “a public figure can’t hardly get a judgment for defamation,” calling reversal a setback to Moore’s reputation.
Verbatim Quotes
- “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 conventional wisdom is that a public figure can’t hardly get a judgment for defamation,” — Jeffrey Wittenbrink, attorney for Roy Moore
- “Because the evidence discussed above is inadequate to support a finding of the necessary intent to defame for purposes of actual malice in a defamation-by-implication case, Moore's defamation and false-light claims necessarily fail,” — Judge Elizabeth L. Branch, Eleventh Circuit
- “We thus vacate the jury's verdict, reverse the denial of SMP's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and remand for entry of judgment in favor of SMP,” — Judge Elizabeth L. Branch
Next Steps
Moore’s team may seek Supreme Court review, which could prompt the high court to revisit the actual-malice standard; otherwise the appellate reversal stands.
