Topline
The New York Times did not commit defamation when it incorrectly linked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) to a 2011 mass shooting, the judge in the case ruled after a weeklong trial, saying he will dismiss the case even as the jury still deliberates—but Palin could still appeal the ruling and ultimately give the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to make it easier for public figures to sue for defamation in the future.
Key Facts
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ruled for the Times under Rule 50, which allows a judge to issue a judgement before a jury rules if they find there’s no “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to rule in a party’s favor.
The judge is still letting the jury deliberate and will formally dismiss the case once they do, saying he wanted an appeals court to have both verdicts when it considers the case, but his ruling is the one that will carry legal weight should the jury rule for Palin.
Palin sued the Times over an op-ed that incorrectly said her political action committee had “incited” the 2011 shooting that wounded former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.)—which was later corrected—arguing the Times published the claim knowing it was false and the article had harmed Palin emotionally and professionally.
Former Times opinion editor James Bennet, who inserted the section on Palin into the piece, testified Wednesday he had not done so maliciously or realized it would be taken to suggest she had incited the shooting, saying he has “regretted [his wording choice] pretty much every day since.”
In order to prove defamation, Palin’s attorneys would have had to show the Times made false statements about her with “actual malice,” meaning there’s “clear and convincing” evidence the newspaper knew they were false or “or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Rakoff said he believed the op-ed was “an example of very unfortunate editorializing” on the Times’ part, but it did not rise to the “very high standard” of actual malice.
Crucial Quote
“It’s an incredibly important case, because it is about freedom of the press, and about the First Amendment,” Times attorney David Axelrod said in his closing statement Friday, adding it was also about “an honest mistake” and Bennet had also offered a public apology to Palin after the piece was corrected. “Why would somebody write, ‘We screwed up,’ if we intended to harm somebody?”
Chief Critic
Palin’s attorneys had argued during the trial that the Times published the claim knowing it was false and that the op-ed had hurt Palin personally and professionally. “All [the Times] had to do was…dislike her a little less and we’re not sitting here today,” Palin attorney Ken Turkel said in his closing statement Friday, arguing the publication was “going to publish this story whether they could support it [factually] or not.”
What To Watch For
The jury is still deliberating, and Rakoff intends to issue a written order dismissing the case after verbally saying he would dismiss it Monday from the bench. Palin told Insider Wednesday she’d “consider” appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if she lost her trial. The GOP politician could ask the high court to overturn its precedent in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, which established the “actual malice” standard for defamation claims involving public figures and determined publications like the Times can publish false statements, as long as they’re not made intentionally. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have said they’d support revisiting that precedent, and with conservatives holding a 6-3 majority, the court could rule in Palin’s favor and make it much easier for public figures to successfully sue for defamation in the future.
Surprising Fact
The court ruling marks the first time in more than 50 years the Times has lost a defamation case, according to the publication.
Key Background
Palin sued the Times in 2017 after the publication of the op-ed in June, which pointed to an advertisement that Palin’s PAC had put out before the 2011 shooting with Giffords and other lawmakers’ districts under crosshairs, stating, “The link to political incitement was clear.” The Times then amended the piece within a day in response to criticism to take out the incitement reference and note “no connection to the shooting was ever established.” The piece was written in response to a 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice, and Axelrod noted in his closing argument Friday that the Palin mention was only a minor part of the piece, saying the fact it was “buried” contradicts Palin’s legal argument “that there was a grand scheme here” to harm the Republican official. The case marks a rare media defamation case to make it to trial, given the high bar for bringing defamation claims, and was initially dismissed in 2017 before an appeals court allowed it to move forward. “We’re keenly aware that we’re fighting an uphill battle,” Palin’s attorney Shane Vogt said in his opening statement.
Tangent
The trial’s start was delayed by 10 days after Palin tested positive for Covid-19. The ex-governor has been outspoken against vaccination and has said she will only get vaccinated “over my dead body.” Before the trial started, Palin drew criticism for dining at New York City restaurants, violating city rules requiring restaurant patrons to show proof of vaccination to dine indoors and for dining out after her positive test.
Further Reading
Here’s Why Sarah Palin Is Taking The New York Times To Court (Forbes)
New York Times offers defense in Sarah Palin libel trial: A ‘terrible’ mistake, not malice (Washington Post)
America’s Lethal Politics (New York Times)
