Appeals Court Overturns $8.2 Million Defamation Verdict Against Senate Majority PAC
An $8.2 million defamation award to Alabama’s Roy Moore has been overturned by an appeals court, marking a significant legal win for a super PAC involved in a 2017 political ad campaign against him. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Moore, a former Republican judge, did not demonstrate that the PAC acted with malice—a necessary criterion in defamation cases concerning public figures.
The court instructed the trial judge to issue a summary judgment in favor of Senate Majority PAC, effectively nullifying the previous verdict. Moore, known for his staunch opposition to same-sex marriage and advocacy for the public display of the Ten Commandments, lost the 2017 Senate race amid a storm of misconduct allegations.
During the campaign, Leigh Corfman accused Moore of sexual misconduct, claiming that he touched her inappropriately in 1979 when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. While Moore denied these allegations, other women alleged that Moore pursued them for dates when they were teenagers.
The controversial ad, funded by Senate Majority PAC through a group named Highway 31, was part of a $4 million effort to discredit Moore. The advertisement included statements asserting Moore was banned from the Gadsden Mall for “soliciting sex from young girls,” and referenced an encounter with a 14-year-old working as a Santa’s helper. The woman involved acknowledged Moore approached her, possibly in a flirtatious manner, but clarified there was no solicitation of sex.
While the court recognized that the PAC made a “negligent error at best,” the judges concluded this did not meet the threshold for “actual malice” required for defamation by implication. U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch noted that the evidence presented was insufficient to substantiate an intent to defame.
Moore’s attorney, Jeff Wittenbrink, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling and indicated potential plans to seek a review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Wittenbrink remarked, “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.”
Meanwhile, Ezra Reese, representing Senate Majority PAC, hailed the decision as a “total vindication,” stating the advertisement was based on accurate reporting from reputable news organizations. Reese emphasized, “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.” He noted that Alabama voters were informed truthfully and “correctly decided” against electing Moore.
In a related defamation case, both Corfman and Moore sued each other, but a jury in 2022 ruled neither party proved their case after an emotionally charged trial.
