Palin Wins Bid for New Trial Against New York Times

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sarah Palin on Wednesday won her bid for a new trial against the New York Times over an editorial that the former Alaska governor said was defamatory.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Palin can once again attempt to prove the Times should be held liable for a 2017 editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” which incorrectly linked her to a 2011 mass shooting that resulted in six deaths and severely wounded Democratic U.S. congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Media critics, including Palin, have seen the case as a potential means to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, the pivotal 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established a high standard for public figures proving defamation.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge John Walker mentioned that U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan committed several errors that affected Palin’s February 2022 trial against the Times and former editorial page editor James Bennet.

The appeals court said Rakoff improperly excluded evidence that, according to Palin, demonstrated the Times’ “actual malice” in publishing the editorial, and also wrongly instructed jurors on the necessary proof for liability.

Moreover, it stated that the verdict could have been influenced after jurors received news alerts on their phones during deliberations indicating that Rakoff would dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence of malice.

“The jury is sacrosanct in our legal system, and we have a duty to protect its constitutional role, both by ensuring that the jury’s role is not usurped by judges and by making certain that juries are provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law,” Walker wrote.

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for the Times, commented, “This decision is disappointing. We’re confident we will prevail in a retrial.”

Shane Vogt, a lawyer for Palin, described the decision as “a significant step forward in the process of holding publishers accountable for content that misleads readers and the public at large. The truth deserves a level playing field, and Governor Palin looks forward to presenting her case to a jury.”

SULLIVAN PRECEDENT QUESTIONED

The Sullivan decision necessitates that public figures who believe they have been defamed must demonstrate that media exhibited “actual malice,” indicating they published false information knowingly or demonstrated reckless disregard for the truth.

Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have called for a reevaluation of this decision, with Gorsuch highlighting changes in the media landscape, such as the rise of cable TV news, online media, and the prevalence of disinformation.

“America’s Lethal Politics” discussed gun control and criticized the rise of incendiary political rhetoric. It was published on June 14, 2017, following a shooting incident at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, where Republican U.S. congressman Steve Scalise and others were injured.

The editorial noted that before the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, where Giffords was injured, Palin’s political action committee had released a map featuring crosshairs over Giffords’ election district.

Palin objected to the editorial’s original wording that stated “the link to political incitement was clear,” despite no evidence showing that the map influenced Jared Lee Loughner, the Arizona shooter.

Bennet had added the contested phrase, which the Times corrected the following morning after receiving complaints from readers and a columnist.

Lawyers for the Times and Bennet clarified that neither aimed to associate Palin with the Arizona shooting.

Palin, 60, was the Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate in 2008 and served as Alaska’s governor from 2006 to 2009. She has likened the Times case to biblical themes, likening herself to an underdog against the Times’ Goliath.

Jurors deliberated for approximately two days, including a few hours after receiving the news alerts regarding Rakoff’s intended dismissal. They later stated that the “push notifications” did not influence their deliberations.

The case is Palin v. New York Times et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-558.