Whether the First Amendment immunizes a political candidate from a private figure's defamation-and-false-light-claims,whether-under-Milkovich's-enhanced-appellate-review-an-appellate-court-may-usurp-the-jury's-role

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Wendy Rogers aired a political attack ad claiming that her adversary Steve Smith “is a slimy character whose modeling agency specializes in underage girls and advertises on websites linked to sex trafficking.” Although the ad was directed at Smith, it was “of and concerning” Pamela Young and her modeling agency because it was common public knowledge that Young’s agency employed Smith. Young sued for defamation and false light, alleging Rogers implied that she and her agency were complicit in sex trafficking underage girls. In a 4-3 opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Young’s claim, though actionable under defamation law, was barred by the First Amendment. The court acknowledged the statement was capable of bearing the meaning Young alleged, but concluded that Young’s meaning “would not likely be drawn by a reasonable reader.” According to the dissent, the majority’s opinion “effectively weaponizes the First Amendment against innocent bystanders ensnared by often-vitriolic political campaigns, disregards wellestablished precedent, and is unnecessary for protecting political speech.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether the First Amendment immunizes a political candidate from a private figure’s defamation and false light claims where the candidate publishes an attack ad that makes statements of and concerning li QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued the private figure and whose implication could bear a defamatory meaning. 2. Whether under Milkovich’s enhanced appellate review, an appellate court may usurp the jury’s role by concluding that although a communication is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, it would not likely be drawn by a reasonable listener.