Roy Moore, previously the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, has approached the U.S. Supreme Court with an urgent plea to prevent the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s decision from becoming operative while he contests the judgment. Moore’s primary concern is his ability to reclaim the $8.2 million jury award, should the lower court’s decision not be stalled but he ultimately succeeds in his appeal.
Moore’s legal journey has been contentious; he was removed twice from his chief justice position. First, in 2003, for not adhering to a federal court mandate to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building, and later in 2016, for defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that affirmed the right to same-sex marriage. The case at hand, however, pertains to his 2017 bid for a U.S. Senate seat during a special election prompted by Senator Jeff Sessions’ resignation to become Attorney General under President Trump.
After losing the election to Democrat Doug Jones, Moore filed a defamation lawsuit against the Senate Majority PAC, accusing them of crafting a campaign ad that inaccurately depicted him as someone who sought inappropriate relations with a minor. Moore maintains that this portrayal was unfounded, and a jury substantiated Moore’s claim, finding that the PAC had acted with “actual malice,” a principle rooted in the Supreme Court’s 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision.
The PAC appealed the verdict, and the 11th Circuit court overturned the jury’s decision. This prompted Moore to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the issuance of the mandate by the court of appeals, scheduled around June 15, would nullify the $8.2 million bond intended as a jury award guarantee unless the Supreme Court intervenes before the decision is implemented. Justice Clarence Thomas is yet to request a response from the PAC regarding Moore’s application, indicating the preliminary status of the emergency appeal.
This legal maneuver underscores the complexity and fraught nature of high-profile defamation cases, particularly those with substantial financial implications and political undercurrents, as covered in detail by SCOTUSblog.