Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Declines to Review Roy Moore Defamation Case
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear former Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore’s appeal seeking to restore an $8.2 million defamation verdict tied to a 2017 Senate-race television ad. The denial leaves in place the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that vacated the jury award.
Background & Context
During the 2017 special election for the seat formerly held by Sen. Jeff Sessions, a television commercial funded by Senate Majority PAC and aired by the group Highway 31 suggested Moore had been banned from a local mall for soliciting sex from teenage girls. The ad cited news reports, including one claim that Moore, then in his 30s, initiated a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old. Moore denied the allegations and, after losing the race to Democrat Doug Jones, sued the PAC and related entities for defamation and invasion of privacy. An Alabama jury awarded him $8.2 million in 2022.
Legal Reasoning & Outcomes
The 11th Circuit reversed the verdict, finding Moore had not satisfied the “actual malice” standard established by *New York Times v. Sullivan*, which requires a public figure to prove the publisher knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Moore’s attorneys argued the ad combined partial quotes to create a “fabricated accusation” that misrepresented the source material. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari ends Moore’s effort to overturn the appellate ruling.
Official Statements & Responses
The Senate Majority PAC did not file a response to the petition, and the Court issued no explanation for its denial.
Impact and Implications
Legal analysts note that the decision reinforces the high bar set by the “actual malice” standard for public-figure defamation claims, signaling that political ads that rely on accurately quoted material—even when assembled to suggest wrongdoing—are unlikely to be deemed defamatory without proof of intent to deceive. The case thus highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when contesting political speech that references publicly reported allegations.