Supreme Court Denies Roy Moore’s Bid to Save $8.2 Million Defamation Verdict

Justice Clarence Thomas has denied Roy Moore’s emergency request to preserve an $8.2 million defamation verdict he won against a Democratic super PAC, a Supreme Court spokesperson confirmed Monday. The denial means a federal appeals court ruling that wiped out Moore’s verdict can now take effect, clearing the way for the bond securing his award to be released.

How the Case Started

The case dates back to Moore’s 2017 special election campaign for the U.S. Senate seat in Alabama, a race he entered after several women came forward during the campaign’s final weeks accusing him of past sexual misconduct. Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic-aligned group, funded an advertising campaign against Moore that ran heavily in the campaign’s closing days. Moore ultimately lost the election to Democrat Doug Jones.
In 2019, Moore sued the PAC, arguing that one of its television ads spliced together separate news reports to falsely suggest he had solicited sex from a 14-year-old girl working as a mall Santa’s helper. A jury sided with Moore in 2022, awarding him $8.2 million and finding the PAC had acted with actual malice.

Why the Appeals Court Reversed It

In April, a unanimous three-judge panel on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the jury’s verdict. The panel found that Moore, as a public figure, failed to prove the PAC acted with actual malice, the legal standard set by the Supreme Court’s 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan. Under that standard, a public figure cannot win a defamation case simply by showing a statement was false; they must show the publisher knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The appeals court described the PAC’s conduct as a negligent error at most, not malice, and noted the ad drew on news reports and witness accounts that were circulating at the time.

What Happens Next

Moore’s attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to pause the appeals court ruling while they prepare a full petition asking the justices to take up the case on its merits. Thomas’s denial does not end that effort. Moore can still file that petition, and the broader legal fight isn’t necessarily over, but for now, the appeals court ruling stands and Moore cannot collect the jury’s award.
The case also touches a bigger legal debate. Some justices, including Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have previously suggested the Supreme Court should revisit the actual malice standard itself, a rule that has made defamation cases brought by public figures and politicians notoriously difficult to win. Whether this case becomes the vehicle for that broader reconsideration will depend on what the full Court decides if Moore’s petition reaches it.
Source: Bloomberg Law, NBC News, SCOTUSblog, AL.com