Roy Moore Seeks Supreme Court Stay To Preserve $8.2 Million Verdict
Roy Moore on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block an Eleventh Circuit decision that overturned his $8.2 million defamation verdict.[1]
Moore's emergency application was filed with Justice Clarence Thomas, who handles emergency matters from the Eleventh Circuit.[1] Moore argues that without a stay his ability to collect the $8.2 million award would be hampered even if the Supreme Court later agrees to hear the appeal and rules for him.[1]
In November 2017, during Moore's Alabama Senate campaign, Senate Majority PAC aired a television ad citing published reports that included an allegation he had solicited sex from a 14-year-old.[1] Moore sued the PAC for defamation in federal court on November 15, 2019.[1] A jury awarded him $8.2 million in August 2022 and the district court upheld the verdict in 2023 before the Eleventh Circuit reversed in April 2026.[1]
On April 24, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit unanimously ruled Moore had not shown that Senate Majority PAC acted with actual malice in airing the ad.[1] The case comes as conservative lawyers press the Supreme Court to revisit or narrow the New York Times v. Sullivan actual-malice standard.[1]
The mainstream summary does not mention that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently declined multiple petitions to revisit the actual malice standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan, including a notable case involving Steve Wynn in 2025. This context is critical as it suggests a trend that may impact Moore's chances of success in his appeal, highlighting the challenges he faces in arguing for a change in this legal standard. Additionally, while the summary focuses on the specifics of Moore's case, it overlooks broader implications regarding defamation verdicts for public figures; historically, such verdicts can reach tens of millions, with notable examples including awards of $25 million in college-related cases and over $1 billion in the Alex Jones cases before reductions or bankruptcy proceedings. These figures underscore the significant stakes involved in Moore's legal battle and the potential ramifications for similar cases in the future.
Furthermore, social media perspectives reveal a mix of support and skepticism regarding Moore's legal strategy. Some users express doubt about the likelihood of overturning the Eleventh Circuit's decision, while others critique the timing of his filing as questionable legal strategy. This discourse illustrates a divided public perception that the mainstream summary does not capture, suggesting that opinions on Moore's appeal are far from uniform and may influence the broader narrative surrounding his case.
Show source details & analysis (1 source)
📊 Relevant Data
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined multiple recent petitions seeking to revisit or narrow the actual malice standard from New York Times v. Sullivan, including a 2025 petition by Steve Wynn.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan — Wikipedia
Defamation verdicts for public figures, when they survive appeal, can reach tens of millions; examples include reduced awards of $25 million in one college-related case and over $1 billion in the Alex Jones cases before reductions or bankruptcy proceedings.
Nine Defamation Cases That Will Leave You Speechless — SGLaw
📌 Key Facts
- On June 17, 2026, Roy Moore submitted an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to stay an Eleventh Circuit ruling that vacated his $8.2 million defamation verdict.
- The application was directed to Justice Clarence Thomas, who oversees emergency matters from the circuit that decided Moore’s appeal.
- The Eleventh Circuit’s April 2026 decision found Moore had not shown Senate Majority PAC acted with actual malice in airing a 2017 ad implying he solicited sex from a 14-year-old.
- Moore argues that, absent a stay, his ability to collect on the judgment will be hampered even if the Supreme Court later grants review and rules in his favor.
- The case arises amid broader conservative efforts to get the Court to revisit or narrow the New York Times v. Sullivan actual-malice standard.
📰 Source Timeline (1)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time