The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, leaving intact a ruling that wiped out the $8.2 million defamation verdict he won over a political ad aired during his 2017 U.S. Senate campaign.

By declining to hear the case, the justices let stand a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that set aside a jury's finding that the ad had defamed Moore. The outcome is a win for Senate Majority PAC, the Democratic-aligned super PAC that paid for the ad and has maintained that it was accurate.

Monday's order follows an earlier setback for Moore. In June, the Court denied his emergency request to freeze the 11th Circuit ruling while his appeal was pending.

Background of the 2017 race

Moore, known for his opposition to same-sex marriage and his support for displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, lost the 2017 Senate election after his campaign was engulfed by allegations of misconduct. Leigh Corfman accused Moore of touching her inappropriately in 1979, when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. Moore denied the allegation. Other women said Moore had dated them or asked them out when they were in their late teens.

The disputed ad

Senate Majority PAC financed Highway 31, a group that ran a heavy advertising campaign against Moore during the race. Moore's defamation suit focused on one of its television spots. His lawyers argued that the ad combined statements and fragments of quotes from different news stories in a way that falsely suggested he had been accused of soliciting sex from young girls at a shopping mall. They described it as a "fabricated accusation, never made by any reporter," and said it aired 533 times in Alabama in the closing days of the election.

From jury win to reversal

A federal jury sided with Moore in 2022 and awarded him $8.2 million. The 11th Circuit later vacated that award, concluding that Moore had not proven the PAC acted with actual malice, the standard a public figure must meet to win a defamation claim.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's bid to restrict mail ballots for the midterm elections, capping a flurry of last-minute legal action with voting already underway.

The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ballots under the same processes they've used for years and have accounted for nearly a third of votes cast.

It represented a stark defeat for Trump on an issue he consistently has emphasized as vital to ensuring election integrity even though there is virtually no evidence of fraud with mail ballots.

The Supreme Court majority wrote that the administration's push to implement the restrictions this year is likely to lose in court, though the brief emergency order didn't detail its reasoning. Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, publicly dissented.

The Trump administration had asked the justices, once again at the center of a roiling political controversy, to clear the way for restrictions before the pivotal November contests for control of Congress.

Alito wrote in his dissent that the Postal Service "has broad authority to regulate the mail" and likely does have the power to enforce Trump's restrictions.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, agreed that the restrictions should not go into effect for the midterms but indicated he might rule in favor of the Trump administration if the issue comes back before the court at a later time.

Mail ballots are already being sent to voters

Election officials have said there was simply no way to carry out a complete overhaul in the weeks before the midterms. Indeed, Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin began sending mail ballots to voters over the past week while the new system was still not active.

The Trump administration plan would require states to adopt a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots to states that didn't comply.

The administration's efforts had the potential to be especially disruptive in states that send out ballots entirely by mail. Washington's Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, said the decision means work "to carry out a safe, secure, and accurate election" can continue "without having to upend our election processes to meet unrealistic ballot mail requirements."

In Arizona, another largely vote-by-mail state, Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said "it is crucial for us to continue rejecting the notion that access and security are mutually exclusive when it comes to running strong elections."

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican serving as the state's chief election officer, said on social media that the Supreme Court's decision means "Utahns can have confidence that the 2026 election will proceed as normal."

The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but have in the past framed the restrictions as commonsense changes aimed at keeping elections secure.

State officials and voting rights groups pushed back

Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenged the restrictions in court, arguing that the president has no constitutional authority to set election rules that would "virtually eliminate mail voting on the eve of a major election."

A whistleblower report, meanwhile, said the postal system's requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent, because problems with the not-yet-operational portal meant a single bar code error could result in an entire batch of ballots being tossed out.

Civil rights advocates on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Texas law requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments, teeing up a potential new test of state-sponsored religious expression in classrooms.

Posters featuring the Ten Commandments began going up almost a year ago in classrooms across Texas, which educates about 5.5 million students. An appeals court earlier this year cleared the way for Texas’ law and one in Louisiana, and similar laws have been passed in Arkansas and Alabama.

“This is an issue of nationwide importance because a number of states have been considering these laws in recent years,” said Heather Weaver, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Over two dozen Texas families represented by the ACLU and other groups petitioned the nation’s highest court to hear their challenge after the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in April upheld the Texas law in a 9-8 ruling.

“We would like for the Supreme Court to make clear that singling out Scripture for display in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment,” Weaver said.

The office for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did not immediately comment Monday.

In the families’ Supreme Court brief, their attorneys argue that the law violates basic First Amendment principles governing the separation of church and state.

“The question of whether a state may impose scripture on impressionable, captive-audience children — for nearly every hour of every school day, for up to (13) years — implicates the most fundamental guarantees of the First Amendment and our Nation’s highest ideals,” they wrote.

The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit reversed lower federal court rulings that had blocked some Texas school districts from putting up the posters.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the law, which took effect last September. Because Texas’ law only requires districts to hang the Ten Commandments if they are donated, conservative groups and individuals began dropping off boxes of posters at campuses across the state as the school year began last year.

“No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin,” the 5th Circuit’s ruling says.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but rather served a plainly religious purpose.

Lawmakers said Kathryn Ruemmler, the former top lawyer at Goldman Sachs and White House counsel to President Barack Obama, was not being truthful Wednesday about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, rejecting her testimony that Epstein had merely "used" her.

Ruemmler in her opening remarks told members of the House Oversight Committee that "it was a mistake to deal with" Epstein, but she insisted she never witnessed criminal activity. She said Epstein "used me and other respectable people to legitimize his standing."

Democrats emerged from questioning Ruemmler saying she was not being forthcoming about her ties to Epstein.

"It is difficult to see how she's being completely truthful in there with the answers she's given the committee," Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters.

Jennifer Connelly, a spokeswoman for Ruemmler, said in response that Ruemmler had "testified openly and truthfully for six hours and answered every question the committee asked."

Ruemmler is the latest prominent figure called before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers investigate the network of powerful people connected with Epstein. The bipartisan inquiry has already included testimony from more than a dozen high-profile witnesses, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former President Bill Clinton, as lawmakers examine how Epstein's wealth and influence may have helped shield him from scrutiny.

Ruemmler served as White House counsel under Obama from 2011 to 2014 and was briefly considered for attorney general. She served as Goldman Sachs' general counsel for six years before announcing in February that she would step down amid backlash over her correspondence with Epstein. Although she said she would step down on June 30, she remains employed by Goldman Sachs.

Lawmakers have focused on Ruemmler's close relationship with Epstein in the final years of his life, pointing to affectionate communications between the two.

"For her to deny that there was any type of real relationship there, I just don't buy it," Garcia said. "And so, again, the fact she is not under oath is very problematic."

While Ruemmler has tried to downplay their relationship in more recent statements, thousands of documents released by the Justice Department showed that Ruemmler and Epstein had an extensive relationship. The files included personal emails, social plans and gifts that extended beyond formal legal work. Documents showed she had called Epstein "Uncle Jeffrey" in emails and said she adored him.

Ruemmler said in her opening remarks that she first met Epstein in 2014 regarding potentially working with him and Gates "to set up a large donor-advised fund." Soon after, according to Ruemmler, she learned about Epstein's 2008 conviction on sex crimes, when he became a registered sex offender.

She said Epstein expressed remorse about it, and that he did not know the women were underaged. She said she "relied on the resolution reached by federal and state prosecutors and validated by a judge as being a proportionate and final resolution of his criminal conduct."

Comer said Wednesday that Ruemmler is the 18th person to testify as part of their broader investigation.

Billionaire investor Leon Black was subpoenaed last month after lawmakers said he refused to answer some questions about his yearslong relationship with Epstein.

Comer said Wednesday that Black will appear for a formal deposition on Sept. 3 but that he expects to have Black's nondisclosure agreements by "the end of the week."

The committee has also expressed interest in questioning acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose nomination to permanently lead the Justice Department is pending before the Senate.

The estranged husband of former Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon pleaded guilty Monday to embezzling more than 400,000 pounds ($540,000) from the Scottish National Party to fund a lavish lifestyle when he was its chief executive.

Peter Murrell, 61, who was remanded into custody in the High Court in Edinburgh after his plea, admitted he used the money to buy a motorhome, two cars and luxury goods.

"By embezzling from the SNP, Peter Murrell was stealing the hopes, the dreams and the aspirations of thousands of people all over Scotland, people who gave what they could over many years in the hope that it would help contribute to a better country," SNP leader John Swinney said at a press conference. "I am horrified, I am betrayed."

Murrell's plea caps a five-year police investigation and a tumultuous period for Scotland's dominant party and the former power couple once at its helm.

Following big gains for the SNP in the Scottish Parliament in 2021, signs of internal turmoil exploded less than two years later as questions swirled about the SNP's finances and dwindling membership numbers.

Sturgeon, who dominated Scottish politics for almost a decade, abruptly resigned as first minister of Scotland's semi-autonomous government in February 2023 after serving more than eight years in the role. Observers were bewildered by her announcement that she knew in her "head and in my heart" that it was the right time to go.

A month later, Murrell quit his job after two decades as party executive. He took responsibility for misleading the news media about the collapsing membership of the party.

Three weeks later, police showed up at the couple's Glasgow home and arrested Murrell.

Officers spent two days searching the house. They also searched SNP headquarters in Edinburgh and confiscated a luxury motorhome parked in the driveway at Murrell's mother's home north of the capital.

Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston said the investigation, which cost 2 million pounds ($2.7 million) in public funds, was lengthy and complex because Murrell covered his tracks over a 12-year period by cooking the books.

"Peter Murrell has shown utter contempt for the high public trust placed in him," Houston said. "He abused his privileged position with access to Scottish National Party funds to divert cash into his own accounts and bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford."

Sentencing was scheduled for June 23.

Police Scotland's investigation into how the SNP spent more than 600,000 pounds ($810,000) designated for a Scottish independence campaign cast a cloud over the party, Sturgeon and her legacy.