Sarah Palin granted new defamation trial against New York Times
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during a 2022 rally in Anchorage, Alaska. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sarah Palin was awarded a new trial against the New York Times on appeal Wednesday in a long-running legal battle over a corrected editorial that the former Alaska governor says defamed her.
Why it matters: Palin has previously indicated that if she loses the libel lawsuit she could challenge the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes it difficult for public figures to win libel suits as they have to prove "actual malice."
- Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have suggested revisiting that standard.
Context: The Times maintains that the error in the editorial headlined "America's Lethal Politics," which erroneously linked Palin to a mass shooting that injured former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), was a mistake.
- The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee's lawyers argued that the outlet acted with "actual malice."
Driving the news: A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled there were "several major issues at trial" in the case that Palin brought against the Times and its former opinion editor James Bennet.
- The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan found U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff "erroneously disregarded or discredited" Palin's "evidence of actual malice and improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the jury" in the case.
- The three-judge panel in its opinion said that an "erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction, a legally erroneous response to a mid-deliberation jury question, and jurors learning during deliberations of the district court's Rule 50 dismissal ruling — impugn the reliability of that verdict."
- Rakoff found that Palin had failed to prove malice as Bennet took actions to check and then correct the article after it was published.
- The judges raised concern that the jury was allowed to reach a verdict that unanimously found the Times not liable in the case despite Rakoff's plans to dismiss the case and that several jurors reported learning via news alerts sent to their phones of this decision.
What they're saying: Palin's attorney Shane Vogt in a statement to media called the appeals court ruling a "step forward in the process of holding publishers accountable for content that misleads readers and the public in general."
- Vogt added: "The truth deserves a level playing field, and Governor Palin looks forward to presenting her case to a jury that is 'provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law' as set forth in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion."
The other side: "This decision is disappointing," NYT spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said in a statement to media.
- "We're confident we will prevail in a retrial."
More from Axios:
