In a dramatic turn in a high-profile legal saga, a federal appeals court has overturned an $8.2 million defamation verdict awarded to former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. The ruling, handed down on April 24, 2026, by a three-judge panel from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, marks a significant victory for the Senate Majority PAC (SMP), the Democratic-aligned super PAC that Moore had sued over a contentious television advertisement aired during his 2017 bid for the U.S. Senate.
The origins of this case stretch back to the heated final weeks of Alabama’s 2017 special Senate election. During that period, Moore, a Republican figurehead known for his staunch opposition to same-sex marriage and his advocacy for the public display of the Ten Commandments, faced a barrage of misconduct allegations. The Washington Post and other outlets reported claims by several women, including Leigh Corfman, who alleged that Moore had sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. Moore denied all allegations, but the stories quickly dominated headlines and campaign ads alike.
Senate Majority PAC, through its affiliate Highway 31, bankrolled a $4 million advertising blitz targeting Moore. At the center of Moore’s lawsuit was one particular TV commercial, which quoted from various news articles and asserted, among other things, that “Roy Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall ... for soliciting sex from young girls.” The ad went on to state, “one he approached was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper.” According to the Associated Press, Moore’s attorneys argued that this juxtaposition of statements created a false and defamatory implication: that Moore had solicited sex from a 14-year-old girl at the mall.
The ad, which ran more than 500 times during the campaign, quickly became a flashpoint. Moore lost the election to Democrat Doug Jones, but the legal battle was just beginning. In 2019, Moore filed a defamation suit against Senate Majority PAC, claiming both libel and false-light invasion of privacy. The case went to trial in 2022, and a federal jury in Montgomery sided with Moore, awarding him $8.2 million in compensatory damages after finding the PAC liable for both defamation and invasion of privacy.
But the victory was short-lived. On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court scrutinized whether Moore had met the daunting legal standard required for public figures to prevail in defamation cases: actual malice. This standard, established in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision, requires plaintiffs to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that false statements were published with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch concluded that Moore had not met this burden. “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,” Branch wrote, as reported by Politico. She noted that Senate Majority PAC had included citations to the original news articles in the ad and had conducted a thorough vetting process. While the PAC’s fact-checkers did not specifically review the allegedly defamatory implication, Branch found this amounted to “a negligent error at best.” She added, “And a negligent error is not a basis for a finding of actual malice.”
The court’s decision was unanimous, with Judges Jill Pryor and Frank Hull joining Branch’s opinion. The panel ordered the district court to enter judgment in favor of Senate Majority PAC, effectively erasing the multimillion-dollar award Moore had won at trial.
Reaction to the ruling was swift and divided. Jeff Wittenbrink, Moore’s attorney, expressed disappointment and signaled that the legal fight was not over. “It’s disappointing,” Wittenbrink told reporters. He indicated that Moore’s team is considering asking the full bench of the 11th Circuit for reconsideration or possibly appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wittenbrink also suggested that the Supreme Court might be open to revisiting the actual malice doctrine, noting, “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.”
On the other side, Senate Majority PAC’s attorney, Ezra Reese, welcomed the appellate court’s verdict as a sweeping vindication. In a statement quoted by the Associated Press, Reese said, “Senate Majority PAC ran an advertisement that cited accurate reporting from major national news outlets detailing the women who bravely came forward with allegations about Moore’s inappropriate conduct.” He added, “Senate Majority PAC told Alabama voters the truth and Alabama voters correctly decided that they did not want a disgusting creep like Roy Moore representing them in the United States Senate.” In a separate comment to Politico, Reese described the decision as “a complete repudiation of Roy Moore’s pathetic seven-year effort to weaponize the courts to launder what little remains of his reputation.”
The legal wrangling surrounding Moore’s reputation has not been limited to his battle with the PAC. In a separate and equally charged case, Moore and his accuser Leigh Corfman sued each other for defamation. That case went to trial in Montgomery County in 2022, where, after an emotionally charged eight-day proceeding, the jury found that neither side had proved its case. Corfman did not defame Moore with her allegations, and Moore did not defame Corfman with his public denials, according to the verdict reported by the Associated Press.
For Alabama voters and political observers across the country, the saga of Roy Moore has been a study in the intersection of politics, media, and the law. The 2017 special election, already one of the most closely watched in recent memory, became a national flashpoint for debates over accountability, the power of political advertising, and the standards that protect free speech—even when it collides with personal reputation.
As the dust settles, the 11th Circuit’s ruling stands as a clear reaffirmation of the high bar set for public figures to win defamation suits in the United States. Whether Moore’s legal team will succeed in persuading the Supreme Court to revisit that standard remains to be seen, but for now, the appeals court’s decision has rewritten the final chapter of a story that has gripped Alabama—and the nation—for nearly a decade.