Roy Moore v. Senate Majority PAC

── Roy Moore v. Senate Majority PAC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 23-13531 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 1 of 45 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13531 ____________________ ROY STEWART MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GUY CECIL, et al., Defendants, SENATE MAJORITY PAC, “SMP”, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 4:19-cv-01855-CLM ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and HULL, Circuit Judges. BRANCH, Circuit Judge: USCA11 Case: 23-13531 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 2 of 45 2 Opinion of the Court 23-13531 In 2017, Roy Moore ran as the Republican nominee in a special election to fill an open seat for one of Alabama’s United States senators. In the final weeks before the election, multiple news outlets reported that several women had accused Moore of inappropriate sexual conduct with them when they were young. Senate Majority PAC (“SMP”) grabbed onto the news reports and ran a campaign ad that stated, among other things, in separate individual frames that (1) “‘Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall . . . for soliciting sex from young girls,’” and (2) “[o]ne he approached ‘was 14 and working as Santa’s helper.’” SMP ran the ad hundreds of times, and Moore eventually lost the election. Moore sued SMP for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy under Alabama law, arguing in relevant part that the two statements above when read together created the false defamatory implication that he had solicited the 14-year-old girl working as Santa’s helper for sex. 1 Those two claims proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found SMP liable for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy, and it awarded Moore $8.2 million in compensatory damages. The district court denied SMP’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, and SMP appealed. SMP raises several issues on appeal, including that the district court erred in denying its renewed motion for judgment as 1 We note that Moore sued other defendants as well and raised additional claims, but for purposes of this appeal we discuss only SMP and the relevant defamation and false-light invasion of privacy claims. USCA11 Case: 23-13531 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 3 of 45 23-13531 Opinion of the Court 3 a matter of law because Moore is a public figure and he failed to present clear and convincing evidence that SMP published the implication in the ad with actual malice as required under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. 376 U.S. 254 (1964). 2 After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we agree with SMP. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order denying SMP’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, and remand with instructions for the district court to enter judgment for SMP. I. Background