Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor, has secured a new opportunity to pursue her defamation claim against the New York Times. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Palin's request for a fresh trial, allowing her to present her case against the newspaper over a 2017 editorial.
The editorial in question, published on June 14, 2017, erroneously connected Palin to a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona. This incident resulted in six fatalities and severely injured Democratic U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. The New York Times, founded in 1851, promptly corrected the editorial the following day after readers and a columnist raised concerns.
Palin's legal team contends that U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who presided over the initial trial in February 2022, improperly excluded evidence of the Times' actual malice and provided incorrect instructions to the jury regarding certain evidence.
This case has drawn significant attention from media critics and Palin herself, who view it as a potential vehicle to challenge the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. This ruling established a high threshold for public figures to prove defamation, requiring them to demonstrate "actual malice" - that media outlets knowingly published false information or showed reckless disregard for the truth.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have expressed interest in revisiting the Sullivan decision, with Gorsuch citing the evolving media landscape, including the proliferation of cable TV news, online media, and the spread of misinformation.
The disputed editorial, titled "America's Lethal Politics," addressed gun control and the rise of inflammatory political rhetoric. It was published in response to a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, which injured Republican U.S. Representative Steve Scalise and others.
Palin, who served as Alaska's governor from 2006 to 2009 and was the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, has framed the case in biblical terms. She testified that she saw herself as an underdog facing the Times' Goliath.
The New York Times and former editorial page editor James Bennet, who added the contested language, maintain that they never intended to link Palin to the Arizona shooting.
An unusual aspect of the case occurred when Judge Rakoff ruled to dismiss Palin's lawsuit during jury deliberations, citing insufficient evidence of malice. Some jurors learned of this decision through news alerts on their cellphones but stated it did not influence their deliberations.
As the case moves forward, it continues to raise important questions about press freedom, public figure defamation standards, and the evolving nature of media in the digital age.
"I considered myself an underdog to the Times' Goliath."
This ongoing legal battle underscores the complex interplay between freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, and the rights of public figures to defend their reputations against potentially damaging media coverage.