Roy Moore, the former Alabama chief justice, filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block enforcement of an $8.2 million jury award against him. Moore requested a stay of the judgment pending review of his petition for a writ of certiorari.
The award stemmed from a defamation case brought by Leigh Corfman, who accused Moore of sexual misconduct in 1979 when she was 14 years old. A jury in Montgomery County, Alabama, found Moore liable for defamation and awarded Corfman $8.2 million in damages in November 2024. Moore has denied the allegations.
Moore's emergency application challenges the judgment on constitutional grounds, arguing that the defamation verdict violates his First Amendment rights and due process protections. His legal team contends that the award is excessive and unconstitutional under standards established in prior Supreme Court precedent governing damages in defamation cases.
The former jurist, who was twice elected and twice removed from his position as chief justice of Alabama, faces significant financial exposure if the judgment stands. An emergency stay would temporarily halt collection efforts while the Supreme Court considers whether to grant his certiorari petition.
Supreme Court emergency applications are rarely granted. The Court typically requires applicants to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent relief, and that the balance of equities favors granting the stay. Moore's application presents novel questions about the intersection of defamation liability and First Amendment protections in cases involving public figures with contested historical allegations.
The Court's response to Moore's emergency filing remains pending. A decision on the stay application does not prejudge the merits of any potential certiorari petition, which would require four justices to vote for review of the underlying case. Moore faces a high bar in convincing the Court that his constitutional claims warrant Supreme Court review