Appeals court overturns Roy Moore's $8.2 million libel award against Democratic PAC
Updated
Updated · POLITICO · Apr 24
Appeals court overturns Roy Moore's $8.2 million libel award against Democratic PAC
4 articles · Updated · POLITICO · Apr 24
A three-judge 11th Circuit panel ruled unanimously that Moore lacked clear and convincing evidence of actual malice by Senate Majority PAC in its 2017 campaign ad.
The court found the PAC fact-checked the ad and included source citations, with any error deemed negligent, not malicious. Moore's attorney plans to seek review by the full 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court.
The decision reverses a 2022 federal jury verdict and ends Moore's seven-year legal battle over the ad, which referenced allegations from news articles during his Senate campaign.
Could this ruling make it harder for public figures to fight misleading ads?
What does this decision mean for the future of negative political advertising?
Why is the legal bar for public figures to prove libel so high?
Are ad creators liable for false implications made by quoting true statements?
What is the legal difference between a 'negligent error' and 'actual malice'?