On April 24, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision that ended one phase of a defamation action that had been pending in US federal courts for almost seven years. Roy Moore, a former chief justice of Alabama and unsuccessful 2017 Senate candidate, won a $8.2 million jury award in 2022 against the Senate Majority PAC, which the three-judge bench unanimously overturned. In the final weeks of the 2017 special election, Highway 31, an organization supported by Senate Majority PAC, mounted a $4 million advertising campaign that included a single television spot. Doug Jones, a Democrat, defeated Moore in that election.
In 2019, he filed a lawsuit against the PAC, claiming that the advertisement’s presentation of the misbehavior accusations that had surfaced during his campaign had defamed him. In 2022, a federal jury in Alabama reached the same conclusion. In a 45-page ruling written by Judge Elizabeth Branch, the Eleventh Circuit has now ordered that the verdict be overturned and that Senate Majority PAC be granted summary judgment.
| Roy Moore v. Senate Majority PAC — Key Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Roy Moore, former Alabama chief justice and 2017 Senate candidate |
| Defendant | Senate Majority PAC |
| Original Lawsuit Filed | 2019 |
| Original Jury Verdict | $8.2 million (2022) |
| Appeals Court | US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
| Ruling Date | April 24, 2026 |
| Case Number | 23-13531 |
| Opinion Author | Judge Elizabeth Branch |
| Underlying Election | 2017 Alabama Senate special election |
| Election Winner | Democrat Doug Jones |
| Ad Buyer | Highway 31 (funded by Senate Majority PAC) |
| Total Ad Spend | $4 million |
| Disputed Implication | Soliciting sex from 14-year-old Santa’s helper at Gadsden Mall |
| Legal Standard at Issue | “Actual malice” under New York Times v. Sullivan |
| Reference Reporting | |
| Moore’s Counsel | Jeff Wittenbrink |
| SMP’s Counsel | Ezra Reese, Elias Law Group |
One of the most important criteria in American First Amendment law is traced through the legal mechanisms behind the reversal. According to the standard set by the Supreme Court in the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, public people who file defamation lawsuits in the United States must demonstrate “actual malice”. The plaintiff must demonstrate through convincing and unambiguous evidence that the defendant either knew the disputed statements were untrue or behaved carelessly regardless of their veracity.
The standard intentionally raises the bar. Moore had not cleared it, according to the Eleventh Circuit’s decision. The Senate Majority PAC’s advertisement was described by the court as “a poor choice of words” that amounted to “a negligent error at best.” The panel decided that negligence did not equate to genuine malice. According to the panel’s reading, Moore’s trial evidence did not meet the requirements of the defamation-by-implication law.
A particular juxtaposition in the advertisement was the contested implication that led to the initial decision. “Roy Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall … for soliciting sex from young girls,” the advertisement said in writing. “One he approached was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper.” The sequence, according to Moore’s legal team, suggested he had asked a 14-year-old in the mall for sex.
During the trial, the lady who had been working as a Santa’s assistant testified that Moore had approached her and was likely flirting with her without asking for sex. Moore’s lawyers contended that none of the underlying news articles the advertisement was based on included the suggestion that the advertisement purportedly created. The argument of Senate Majority PAC contended that the implication was accidental and the product of careless editing rather than purposeful deception. In the end, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with that framing.
The public record still includes the larger factual background of Moore’s 2017 campaign, which the appellate decision does not revisit. During the campaign, a number of women came forward to describe Moore’s behavior decades prior, when he was an associate district attorney in his early 30s. When Leigh Corfman was 14 years old in 1979, she claimed that Moore had touched her sexually. Moore refuted it and other accusations.
In a different defamation case that Corfman and Moore had filed against one another in 2022, the jury deliberated for around three hours before concluding that neither side had proven its case. When they were teenagers and Moore was in his 30s, a number of other women claimed that Moore had asked them out or dated them. Reports from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other prominent publications that were referenced on screen in the controversial 2017 advertisement served as the basis for the campaign reporting.
Each side’s response followed a predictable pattern. Senate Majority PAC’s Elias Law Group lawyer Ezra Reese described the underlying advertisement as having “told Alabama voters the truth” and referred to the decision as a “total vindication” of the PAC.” Moore was described in Reese’s statement using harsh language that the PAC had never toned in its public statements during the dispute.
Moore’s lawyer, Jeff Wittenbrink, stated that his client was debating whether to request that the ruling be reviewed by the US Supreme Court. Wittenbrink hinted that the case might force the Court to “look at the whole doctrine of actual malice,” echoing conservative jurists’ claims that the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent need to be reexamined, most notably Justice Clarence Thomas. Given the particulars of Moore’s case and the larger political sensitivities, it is legitimately unclear if the Supreme Court will accept that offer.
Additional context is provided by the case’s procedural background. In connection with the 2017 stories against him, Moore filed at least three further federal lawsuits for defamation, all of which were unsuccessful. In a previous case involving authors of the Washington Examiner, the Eleventh Circuit decided against him. In a lawsuit involving comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, the Second Circuit decided against him.
The cumulative record across several courts and defendants indicates that Moore has continually been denied the type of recovery his attorneys sought under the public-figure defamation legal framework. Whether this case becomes a constitutional law footnote or something more significant will depend on whether the final Supreme Court petition reframes the theory or adds to the lengthy record of denied certiorari requests challenging Sullivan over recent decades.
The verdict has been over for the time being. According to the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation, political advertising during a contested election season is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court will either start or finish the next chapter, if there is one.
