Moore, a Republican and former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, had secured the GOP nomination after defeating then-Sen. Luther Strange in a primary that drew considerable attention from conservatives nationwide. He then faced Democrat Doug Jones in the general election.
The contest took a dramatic turn when The Washington Post published allegations from several women concerning Moore’s conduct toward them when they were teenagers. Moore denied accusations of sexual misconduct and maintained that his political opponents and hostile media coverage were being used to destroy his candidacy.
Against that backdrop, Senate Majority PAC released a television advertisement attacking Moore. The commercial featured comments from Republican voters criticizing the Republican nominee.
One line in particular became the foundation of Moore’s eventual lawsuit.
The advertisement included a voter stating, “Roy Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden mall for soliciting sex from young girls.”
Moore argued that the statement was false and defamatory. He contended that the political organization had presented the allegation as fact despite knowing it was untrue.
Senate Majority PAC took a different position. The group argued that the advertisement was substantially accurate when viewed against the information and news reports that were publicly available at the time.
The dispute eventually reached a federal jury in Alabama. In 2022, jurors sided with Moore and awarded him $8.2 million in damages.
The overwhelming portion of that award consisted of punitive damages. Of the $8.2 million total, $8 million was punitive, reflecting the jury’s conclusion that the conduct at issue warranted substantial punishment.
A federal judge subsequently upheld the jury’s verdict, setting the stage for another round of litigation.
Senate Majority PAC appealed, and the case moved to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2024, the appeals court reversed the multimillion-dollar judgment, finding that Moore had not cleared one of the most difficult hurdles in American defamation law: proving “actual malice.”
That standard is especially important when public officials and public figures sue over political speech.
The requirement comes from the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. Under that constitutional framework, a public figure generally must demonstrate that the disputed statement was published either knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true.
The 11th Circuit determined that Moore’s evidence did not satisfy that demanding standard.
The appeals court also pointed to the information available to Senate Majority PAC when the advertisement was produced. According to the court, the organization had relied on news coverage and other publicly available material while preparing the campaign commercial.
Moore refused to let the appeals court ruling end the matter.
His attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the 11th Circuit had improperly displaced the judgment reached by the Alabama jury.
The defense maintained that jurors had listened to the testimony, evaluated the witnesses and reviewed the evidence before determining that Senate Majority PAC had acted knowingly or recklessly when it broadcast the accusation.
The PAC urged the Supreme Court to leave the appeals court decision untouched.
Its attorneys argued that the 11th Circuit had correctly applied established First Amendment protections surrounding political expression and that Moore had not produced the evidence necessary to establish actual malice.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take the case does not necessarily mean the justices agreed with every part of the 11th Circuit’s analysis. Instead, the practical result is that the appellate ruling remains in effect and the $8.2 million judgment cannot be restored through this appeal.
For Moore, however, the legal defeat closes a case rooted in one of the most consequential elections of his political career.
The 2017 Alabama Senate race was already unusual before the controversy surrounding Moore erupted.
After defeating Strange for the Republican nomination, Moore entered the general election in a state where Republicans traditionally enjoyed a commanding advantage.
But the allegations published during the campaign fundamentally changed the political landscape.
Moore repeatedly rejected allegations of sexual misconduct and accused his critics of attempting to derail his campaign. Nevertheless, the controversy dominated the final weeks of the election.
Jones ultimately prevailed by approximately 22,000 votes, delivering Democrats an extraordinary victory in a state that had long been considered deeply Republican.
His victory made him the first Democrat elected to Alabama’s U.S. Senate delegation in decades.
Moore later attempted another political comeback, seeking the Republican Senate nomination in 2020. That effort also ended unsuccessfully.
Now, after years of litigation, the Supreme Court has effectively closed the door on Moore’s attempt to reclaim the $8.2 million defamation award.
The case also underscores the enormous legal protection surrounding political speech in America, particularly when the person bringing the lawsuit is a public figure.
For Moore, the jury victory once represented a major legal triumph. But the appeals court reversal—and now the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene—means the award will not stand.
The final outcome leaves the 11th Circuit’s ruling as the controlling decision in the dispute and ends Moore’s years-long effort to resurrect the multimillion-dollar verdict.
