A unanimous federal appeals court panel threw out the $8.2 million jury verdict that former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore won against the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC, ruling Friday that Moore failed to prove the group acted with actual malice when it aired a campaign ad against him during the 2017 Alabama Senate special election.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Moore, a public figure under defamation law, did not meet the "clear and convincing" evidence standard required to sustain the award. The three-judge panel ordered the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the PAC, AP News reported.
The ruling ends, at least for now, a legal fight that began in 2019 when Moore sued the PAC over a television ad aired in the closing weeks of that bruising special election. A federal jury in Montgomery sided with Moore in 2022, concluding the PAC was liable for both libel and false-light invasion of privacy. The appeals court disagreed entirely.
At the center of the case was a TV spot that Senate Majority PAC ran against Moore as the 2017 race entered its final stretch. The election had been roiled by allegations, published in numerous news articles, that Moore had pursued relationships with teenage girls decades earlier. One account described Moore's interactions with a 14-year-old girl at a shopping mall in Gadsden, Alabama, and said he later asked her on dates when she was 16.
Moore argued that two statements in the ad, read together, implied he had solicited the girl for sex while she worked at the mall, an implication he said was defamatory. The jury agreed. But the appeals panel, led by Judge Elizabeth Branch, a Trump appointee, found the PAC's ad makers may not have even recognized that reading.
Branch wrote that the evidence showed it was possible the PAC's team "did not know that the implication even existed." The panel noted that the ad cited underlying news articles, included source references for viewers, and had gone through what Branch described as a "thorough vetting process."
The Washington Examiner noted that the judges emphasized the ad had been fact-checked and drew on existing reporting from major national news outlets, factors that cut against any finding of reckless disregard for the truth.
Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, a public figure like Moore must prove that a defendant published defamatory material with "actual malice", meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. It is a deliberately high bar, designed to protect political speech.
Branch's opinion drew a sharp line between negligence and malice. Even if the PAC's wording was sloppy or misleading, the court said, that alone does not satisfy the standard.
As Politico reported, Branch wrote:
"At most, it shows that SMP made a poor choice of words... a negligent error at best. And a negligent error is not a basis for a finding of actual malice."
The panel also rejected the argument that the jury's disbelief of PAC witnesses was, by itself, enough to establish malice. Branch stated plainly:
"The jury's rejection of the SMP witnesses' testimony about the intent of the ad is not itself clear and convincing evidence of actual malice."
That distinction matters. Juries can disbelieve a defendant, but disbelief alone does not fill the evidentiary gap that the actual malice standard demands. The court found Moore's case came up short on affirmative proof of intent.
Senate Democrats have faced setbacks on multiple fronts in recent months, from blocking DHS funding over ICE demands to losing ground in fundraising battles. But this legal victory for a major Democratic PAC gives the party's operative class something to celebrate, even if the underlying conduct raises its own questions about political advertising standards.
Moore's attorney, Jeffrey Wittenbrink, called the decision disappointing and signaled the fight may not be over. He said he expects to challenge the ruling, either by asking the full 11th Circuit to rehear the case or by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court. Wittenbrink suggested the high court might be willing to take up the matter.
Ezra Reese, the lawyer for Senate Majority PAC, was far less restrained. He hailed the ruling in a statement that leaned heavily into political messaging, saying the PAC "told Alabama voters the truth" and that voters "correctly decided that they did not want" Moore representing them in the Senate.
Reese also called the decision "a total vindication of Senate Majority PAC and a complete repudiation of Roy Moore's" legal effort. His statement's tone was more campaign press release than legal analysis, a reminder that for groups like Senate Majority PAC, courtrooms and campaign trails serve the same strategic purpose.
The PAC's approach fits a broader pattern among Schumer-aligned political action committees that blend legal defense with public messaging to shape narratives around contested races.
One detail worth noting: the panel that wiped out Moore's award was not stacked with liberal judges. Branch is a Trump appointee. Jill Pryor was appointed by President Obama. Frank Hull was appointed by President Clinton. All three agreed. The unanimity across partisan lines suggests the legal reasoning was straightforward, even if the political implications are not.
The ruling does not say the ad was fair or accurate in every respect. It says Moore did not prove the PAC knew it was publishing a false implication or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Those are different things. A political ad can be misleading, even irresponsible, and still survive a defamation claim if the plaintiff cannot clear the actual malice hurdle.
That reality should concern anyone who cares about honest political advertising, left or right. The actual malice standard, whatever its constitutional justification, effectively gives well-funded political operations wide latitude to craft ads that skirt the line between aggressive framing and outright falsehood. As long as the ad cites real sources and goes through a vetting process, the legal shield holds.
Democrats have shown a willingness to push that latitude to its limits, whether through combative political messaging or through PAC-funded ad campaigns designed to define Republican candidates before they can define themselves.
Moore's legal options are narrowing. A petition for rehearing en banc, before the full 11th Circuit, is possible but rarely granted. A Supreme Court petition would face even longer odds, though Wittenbrink's suggestion that the justices might take interest hints at a possible argument that the actual malice standard needs refinement in the age of sophisticated, PAC-funded political advertising.
The Supreme Court has shown some appetite in recent years for revisiting defamation law, with individual justices questioning whether the actual malice framework still serves its original purpose. Whether Moore's case is the right vehicle for that debate is another matter.
For now, the $8.2 million award is gone. Senate Majority PAC walks away without paying a dime. And the ad that sparked the lawsuit, aired nearly a decade ago during one of the most contentious Senate races in modern memory, remains part of the public record, its legal status settled even if its fairness is not.
Internal Democratic factional battles may dominate the party's headlines these days, but the PAC's legal win is a reminder that the institutional machinery behind Democratic campaigns remains formidable, and well-lawyered.
When the law lets a political machine air a misleading ad, cite its own sources as cover, and then call the result "vindication," the system is working exactly as designed. Whether that design still serves voters is a question worth asking, and one no court seems inclined to answer.
