Judge dismisses Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times in the middle of jury deliberations
- The judge overseeing Sarah Palin's lawsuit against the New York Times dismissed it in the middle of jury deliberations.
- He ruled that Palin didn't prove the Times acted with "actual malice," the standard for defamation against public figures.
The judge overseeing Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times dismissed the case on Monday as the jury was still deliberating its verdict.
US District Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that Palin, after a week of testimony, didn't produce enough evidence that the New York Times acted with "actual malice," the legal threshold used for cases of potential defamation against public figures.
Rakoff said he would allow the jury, which began deliberating on Friday afternoon, to continue its deliberations so that it may be used for a future appeal.
The former Republican vice-presidential candidate filed her lawsuit in 2017 over an editorial published by the Times that June titled "America's Lethal Politics." The piece followed the shooting of several Republican members of Congress by a man with a history of opposing their political positions.
The Times article, published in its opinion section, drew a link between the shooting and an earlier one, in 2011, where another man shot then-Democratic Rep. Gabriel Giffords in Arizona, wounding her and killing six others. According to the version of the editorial that was initially published, Palin incited that shooting because her political action committee posted an image on Facebook that put Giffords's district under crosshairs.
The Times corrected the article the next day, admitting that there was no established link between Palin's committee's post and the Giffords shooting. Palin filed her lawsuit two weeks later.
James Bennet, the head of the Times's opinion operation, inserted the phrases Palin claims were defamatory while revising another writer's first draft of "America's Lethal Politics." Bennet resigned from the Times in June 2020 after running an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for the deployment of US military troops to quell American civilian protests, but remains a co-defendant in the lawsuit.
Rakoff initially dismissed the lawsuit in August 2017, ruling that the Times made a "mistake" but that the former Alaska governor had not proved that the mistake "was made maliciously, that is, with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard of its falsity."
An appeals court later ruled against Rakoff, setting the stage for a trial. It was scheduled to begin on January 24 of this year but was delayed after Palin, who opposes using safe coronavirus vaccines, tested positive for COVID-19.
The trial featured testimony from Bennett, Elizabeth Williamson, who wrote the first draft of the editorial, and other New York Times employees. The Times staffers laid bare the editorial process and how the opinion section — which is separate from the newsroom — handles corrections.
Palin also testified about her feelings about the editorial. She alleged that the Times had a record of "lying" about her, but did not specify any examples, and alleged without evidence that the editorial damaged her career prospects.
As Rakoff sent the jurors into deliberations, lawyers for the Times filed a motion to dismiss the case wholesale, claiming Palin had not proven her case. In granting the motion on Monday, Rakoff noted that Bennett's language was "very unfortunate editorializing" but that he did not act with "reckless disregard," considering the steps he took to evaluate whether a correction was warranted after the editorial was initially published.
Palin has suggested that she wants the Supreme Court to revisit the "actual malice" standard of defamation law. Two conservative members of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have both said they believe the standard is problematic.
In an interview with Insider Thursday, Palin said she'd consider raising the argument upon appeal.
"We'll consider it after this case," she said.