A federal appeals court has overturned an $8.2 million defamation verdict previously awarded to former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. The case stemmed from a 2017 political advertisement detailing misconduct accusations.

Background of the Case

The advertisement, funded by the Senate Majority PAC, focused on allegations of misconduct against Moore during his 2017 campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Moore did not demonstrate that the PAC acted with actual malice, a key requirement in defamation cases involving public figures.

The Advertisement's Content

The dispute centered on a television commercial produced by Highway 31, a group supported by the Senate Majority PAC. The ad recounted allegations, including claims made by Leigh Corfman, who alleged Moore sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14 years old and he was 32.

The ad stated Moore had been banned from the Gadsden Mall for allegedly soliciting sex from young girls, referencing a 14-year-old working as a Santa’s helper. Corfman testified Moore engaged in flirtatious behavior but did not explicitly solicit sex.

Appeals Court Ruling

The appeals court found that while the PAC may have committed a “negligent error,” it did not meet the threshold for malice required to support a defamation claim. Judge Elizabeth Branch, writing for the panel, stated the evidence was “inadequate to support a finding of the necessary intent to defame.”

Reactions to the Decision

Moore’s attorney, Jeff Wittenbrink, expressed disappointment and indicated consideration of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wittenbrink suggested the Supreme Court might revisit the legal standard for defamation cases involving public figures.

Ezra Reese, representing the Senate Majority PAC, called the ruling a “total vindication,” asserting the advertisement accurately reflected reporting from national news outlets. Reese stated the PAC simply informed voters about the allegations against Moore.

Previous Legal Battles

Corfman and Moore also engaged in a separate defamation lawsuit against each other, which concluded in 2022 with a jury finding neither party had proven their claims. These legal battles highlight the complexities of balancing free speech and protecting reputations in political campaigns.