Appeals court overturns $8.2 million defamation win for Roy Moore

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — An appeals court on Friday reversed an $8.2 million defamation verdict awarded to Alabama politician Roy Moore, who sued a super PAC over a 2017 political ad detailing misconduct accusations against him.

The panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Moore failed to prove the organization acted with malice, one of the legal standards for cases involving public figures. The three-judge panel vacated the defamation verdict and ordered the trial judge to enter a summary judgment in favor of Senate Majority PAC.

Moore, a former Republican judge known for his hard-line stances opposing same-sex marriage and supporting the public display of the Ten Commandments, lost the 2017 Senate race after his campaign was rocked by misconduct allegations against him. Leigh Corfman said that Moore sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. Moore denied the accusation. Other women said Moore dated them, or asked them out on dates, when they were older teens.

Senate Majority PAC funded Highway 31, a group that ran a $4 million advertising blitz against Moore.

The lawsuit centered on one TV commercial that recounted accusations against Moore. Moore’s attorneys argued the ad, through the juxtaposition of statements and partial quotes from news articles, falsely implied he solicited sex from young girls at a shopping mall.

The ad including the written statements that “Roy Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall …. for soliciting sex from young girls.” It continued with “one he approached was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper.”

The woman testified that Moore approached her and was probably flirting with her but that he did not solicit sex.

Judges found the PAC made a “negligent error at best” but that “is not a basis for a finding of actual malice.”

“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,” U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote.

Jeff Wittenbrink, a lawyer representing Moore, said he was disappointed in the decision. He said they are considering asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

“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,” Wittenbrink said.

Ezra Reese, an attorney representing Senate Majority PAC, issued a statement calling the ruling a “total vindication of Senate Majority PAC.”

“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,” Reese said. Reese said the 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.”

Corfman and Moore also sued each other for defamation. A jury in 2022 deliberated for about three hours before ruling that neither side had proved its case during the emotionally charged trial in which both Moore and Corfman took the stand to testify.