In a significant legal development, a federal appeals court has revived former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, delivering a blow to the prominent newspaper. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday that the lower court judge made several critical errors during the 2022 trial, ultimately overturning a jury's decision that had favored the Times.
Palin’s lawsuit centers on a 2017 editorial that linked her political rhetoric to the 2011 shooting of then-Representative Gabby Giffords in Arizona. The editorial insinuated that Palin’s political action committee had incited the attack by distributing a map with crosshairs over certain Democratic districts, including Giffords’. This connection, however, was quickly debunked, prompting the Times to issue a correction. Nevertheless, Palin argued that the damage was already done, accusing the paper and its former editorial page editor, James Bennet, of acting with "actual malice" — a key legal standard in defamation cases.
https://x.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/1828870262017728562
The appeals court panel, composed of three judges appointed by Republican presidents, criticized U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff for dismissing Palin's case prematurely. The panel also found fault with the fact that some jurors received news alerts about the judge’s dismissal while they were still deliberating, which could have influenced their decision unfairly. The panel asserted that the judge's actions undermined the integrity of the judicial process, particularly since the jurors knew the judge had already ruled in favor of the Times while they were still deciding the case.
Adding to the controversy, the appeals court also noted that Rakoff had improperly restricted Palin’s legal team from presenting critical arguments. Among these was the assertion that Bennet had a personal vendetta against Palin and that his decision to publish the editorial was influenced by his brother, Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado.
https://x.com/rscharf_/status/1828801516276248622
The Times has consistently denied any malicious intent, arguing that the editorial was an honest mistake that was corrected swiftly. However, this ruling opens the door for Palin to take her case back to court, where she will have another opportunity to convince a jury of her claims.
Legal analysts suggest that this decision could have broader implications for defamation law, especially concerning public figures. Palin's case may test the boundaries of the "actual malice" standard, which requires plaintiffs to prove that a publication knew its information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
This lawsuit, originally filed in 2017, has become a touchstone for debates on media accountability and the protection of public figures from defamatory statements. The revived case is expected to garner significant attention, with potential ramifications for how the media reports on public figures in the future.
The New York Times has yet to indicate whether it will seek a rehearing or prepare for a new trial. Meanwhile, Palin and her legal team are gearing up for another round in what has become a high-profile battle over press freedom and reputational harm.
