NewsDefamation Laws

Roy Moore Asks the Supreme Court to Revive His Defamation Award, Explained

Independently fact-checkedBy Recording Law Editorial Team9 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited June 25, 2026). · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Roy Moore Asks the Supreme Court to Revive His Defamation Award, Explained

Roy Moore Asks the Supreme Court to Revive His Defamation Award, Explained

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore asked the U.S. Supreme Court on June 14, 2026 to stay an Eleventh Circuit ruling that erased his $8.2 million defamation verdict against Senate Majority PAC. The emergency application, No. 25A1396, is directed to Justice Clarence Thomas and remains undecided.

Information last verified on June 25, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: Emergency application No. 25A1396 is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. It was filed June 14, 2026 and routed to Circuit Justice Clarence Thomas. As of June 25, 2026, the Court has taken no action, no certiorari petition has been granted, and no decision has issued. Nothing here predicts how the Court will rule.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers a federal proceeding now before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying federal First Amendment defamation doctrine. It does not restate every element of state defamation law; for the foundational concept of whether a public figure can sue for defamation, see our standing explainer.

What Happened

The dispute traces to Alabama's 2017 U.S. Senate special election. Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic-aligned super PAC, ran a television ad about Roy Moore, the Republican nominee. According to the Eleventh Circuit's opinion, the ad stated in separate frames that Moore was "banned from the Gadsden Mall ... for soliciting sex from young girls" and that one person he approached "was 14 and working as Santa's helper" (Roy Moore v. Senate Majority PAC, No. 23-13531 (11th Cir. Apr. 24, 2026)).

Moore sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging defamation and false light. In 2022, a jury sided with Moore and awarded him $8.2 million, finding the PAC published the defamatory message with actual malice.

Senate Majority PAC appealed. On April 24, 2026, a unanimous three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the PAC. The panel held that Moore, a public figure, did not present clear and convincing evidence that the PAC published the ad's implication with actual malice. The court described the ad's wording as, at most, a negligent error, which falls short of the constitutional standard (No. 23-13531).

Moore asked the Eleventh Circuit to stay its mandate while he sought Supreme Court review. On June 8, 2026, the court denied that request. With the mandate set to take effect, on June 14, 2026 Moore filed an emergency application in the U.S. Supreme Court, docketed as No. 25A1396 and directed to Justice Clarence Thomas, the Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit (U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 25A1396). The application asks the Court to pause the mandate so the district court does not enter judgment for the PAC, and so the bond securing the verdict is not released, before Moore can file a certiorari petition. As of June 25, 2026, no action has been reported on the application.

A gavel and legal documents representing a federal defamation jury verdict

What the Law Actually Says

Under federal constitutional law, a public official or public figure who sues for defamation must prove "actual malice." The U.S. Supreme Court defined that term in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), as publishing a statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not" (376 U.S. at 280). The plaintiff must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, a higher bar than ordinary negligence. This is the central reason the Eleventh Circuit reversed Moore's verdict: it concluded the trial record did not meet that bar.

Moore is treated as a public figure, so the actual-malice rule applies to his claim. Public-figure status changes what a plaintiff must prove; for the threshold question of how courts decide that status, see our explainer on whether a public figure can sue for defamation, and for the building blocks of any such claim, see the elements of a defamation claim.

The Eleventh Circuit also addressed defamation by implication, a theory where the literal words may be defensible but the message a reasonable viewer takes away is false and harmful. The panel held that a public figure pursuing this theory must show the defendant intended to convey the defamatory implication, or recklessly disregarded it, not merely that the defendant knew an underlying fact (No. 23-13531). That holding tightens what a public-figure plaintiff must prove about the defendant's state of mind toward the implication itself.

Moore's filing leans on the fact that some justices, including Justice Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, have written separately urging the Court to reconsider Sullivan. The dispute therefore sits within a broader, unresolved debate over the actual-malice standard. The same standard runs through related disputes we track, including recent high-profile defamation litigation, and through state-level claims such as those under Alabama defamation law.

The seal of a federal appeals court symbolizing the Eleventh Circuit reversal

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

Two things are happening at once here, and it helps to keep them separate. The narrow question in front of Justice Thomas is procedural: should the Eleventh Circuit's mandate be paused so Moore's verdict and bond are preserved while he asks the Court to take the case? A stay does not decide who is right. It only freezes the situation.

The larger question is doctrinal. Because at least two sitting justices have publicly invited a challenge to New York Times v. Sullivan, any high-profile public-figure defamation loss now gets read as a potential test case. This one has the ingredients that draw attention: a well-known plaintiff, a large verdict, a clean reversal grounded squarely in actual malice, and a defamation-by-implication holding that sharpens the standard.

That framing can outrun the procedure. Granting a stay would not signal the Court intends to revisit Sullivan, and denying one would not foreclose review. We are noting the stakes, not handicapping the outcome.

How This Affects You

For most readers, the immediate practical effect is informational rather than personal. The actual-malice standard from Sullivan still governs public-figure defamation claims nationwide; nothing in a pending, undecided application changes that. If you are a journalist, a campaign, an advocacy group, or anyone who publishes about public figures, the existing rule continues to apply while this plays out.

If you are weighing whether you could even bring a defamation claim, the starting point is still your status as a plaintiff and the elements your jurisdiction requires, not this single application. This article is general legal information and does not assess any specific situation. A change in the law would come only from a future merits ruling, not from the act of filing an emergency application.

What Happens Next

Procedurally, several things could occur, in no fixed order or timeline. Justice Thomas may act on the application alone or refer it to the full Court. The Court could call for a response from Senate Majority PAC before ruling. It could grant the stay, deny it, or grant it on conditions. Separately, Moore has signaled he will file a petition for certiorari asking the Court to hear the case on the merits; an application to stay the mandate is a placeholder to keep the verdict alive in the meantime.

The event that would convert this explainer into hard news is a concrete order: a ruling that grants or denies the stay, an order directing the PAC to respond, or a later decision granting or denying certiorari. Any grant of certiorari that frames the question around the actual-malice standard would be the most consequential development. Until one of those happens, the matter remains pending and undecided. We will update this page when the docket moves.

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It describes a pending federal proceeding before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit as of June 25, 2026; the record may change. Defamation law varies by jurisdiction and fact. For advice about a specific situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.

Sources

Last updated: 2026-06-25. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-06-25.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the Supreme Court ruled on Roy Moore's application?

No. As of June 25, 2026, application No. 25A1396 is pending and undecided. The Court has not acted on the stay request and has not agreed to hear the underlying case.

What is application No. 25A1396 actually asking for?

It asks the U.S. Supreme Court to stay (pause) the Eleventh Circuit's mandate so the appellate ruling does not take effect, and the bond securing the verdict is not released, before Moore can file a petition for certiorari.

Why is the application directed to Justice Thomas?

Justice Clarence Thomas is the Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit, so emergency applications from that circuit are routed to him. He can act alone or refer the matter to the full Court.

What did the Eleventh Circuit decide on April 24, 2026?

A unanimous panel reversed the $8.2 million jury verdict and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Senate Majority PAC, holding that Moore did not prove the ad was published with actual malice (No. 23-13531).

What is the actual-malice standard?

Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public figure must prove a false statement was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, by clear and convincing evidence.

What did the court say about defamation by implication?

The Eleventh Circuit held that a public figure must prove the defendant intended to convey the defamatory implication, or recklessly disregarded it, not merely that the defendant knew an underlying fact (No. 23-13531).

Could this case overturn New York Times v. Sullivan?

It is described as a possible vehicle because some justices have urged reconsidering Sullivan. But the Court has not agreed to hear the case, and we do not predict how it would rule if it did.

When will we know more?

When the docket moves: an order granting or denying the stay, an order calling for a response, or a later decision on certiorari. We will update this page when that happens.

Updates

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

Sources and References

  1. U.S. Supreme Court docket, Moore v. Senate Majority PAC, Application No. 25A1396(supremecourt.gov).gov
  2. Emergency Application to Stay the Mandate, Moore v. Senate Majority PAC, No. 25A1396 (filed June 14, 2026)(supremecourt.gov).gov
  3. Roy Moore v. Senate Majority PAC, No. 23-13531 (11th Cir. Apr. 24, 2026)(ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
  4. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)(law.cornell.edu)
  5. Roy Moore v. Senate Majority PAC, No. 23-13531 (11th Cir.), docket(courtlistener.com)
Share: