A federal jury in Manhattan has found that The New York Times is not liable for defamation in a retrial of Sarah Palin’s lawsuit. The case stemmed from a 2017 editorial that inaccurately linked Palin’s political action committee to the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, which critically injured then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.
The editorial initially suggested a connection between the shooting and a map used by Palin’s PAC. Although The New York Times issued a correction within hours of publication, Palin argued that the correction did not go far enough, particularly since it did not explicitly mention her by name. Despite this, the jury sided with the Times, ruling that the newspaper’s actions did not meet the high standard required for defamation claims by public figures.
This verdict marks Palin’s second trial loss in the case. In 2022, a lower court had initially ruled in her favor, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, citing procedural errors. The appellate court found that the trial judge had prematurely indicated he would dismiss the case, thus undermining the jury’s role in deciding the outcome.
The case is significant for its First Amendment implications, as it tests the limits of defamation law for public figures. Under the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures must prove “actual malice” to win defamation lawsuits. This high bar makes it difficult for figures like Palin to succeed in such cases.
Following the verdict, Palin’s legal team has signaled their intention to consider further appeals, potentially extending the legal battle. The outcome may further define the parameters of defamation law as it pertains to the media’s coverage of public figures, particularly in an era of widespread digital misinformation.
