Sarah Palin Triumphs in Defamation Battle: NY Times Faces New Trial - What This Means for Media and Public Figures
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Multibagger) - In a striking legal development, Sarah Palin has successfully secured a new trial in her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Palin another opportunity to argue that the Times should be held accountable for a 2017 editorial that wrongly implicated her in a mass shooting six years earlier, which resulted in six fatalities and severe injuries to Democratic U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
This case has garnered significant attention from media critics and Palin herself, as it presents a potential challenge to 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 the false information was published knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Key Judicial Findings
Circuit Judge John Walker, writing for a three-judge panel, identified several critical errors by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff during Palin's February 2022 trial. These errors included:
- Wrong Exclusion of Evidence: Judge Rakoff improperly excluded evidence that Palin argued showcased the Times' "actual malice" in publishing the editorial.
- Inadequate Jury Instructions: The jury was misinformed about the level of proof required to hold the Times liable.
- Juror Influence: The verdict may have been compromised when jurors, during deliberations, received news alerts on their cellphones indicating Rakoff's intention to dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence of malice.
Walker emphasized the sanctity of the jury's role in the judicial process, asserting the necessity of protecting their constitutional function and ensuring they receive relevant evidence and proper legal instructions.
The Editorial in Question: "America's Lethal Politics"
The contentious editorial, titled "America's Lethal Politics," was published on June 14, 2017, following a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, which injured Republican U.S. Congressman Steve Scalise and others. The piece discussed gun control and criticized the rise of inflammatory political rhetoric.
It referenced a 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, which injured Giffords, and noted that Palin's political action committee had previously published a map with crosshairs over Giffords' election district. Palin objected to the editorial's statement that "the link to political incitement was clear," arguing there was no evidence that the map had influenced the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. The disputed phrase was added by James Bennet, the former editorial page editor.
The Times corrected the editorial the following morning, removing the contentious language after receiving complaints from readers and a columnist. Lawyers for the Times argued that neither the newspaper nor Bennet intended to link Palin to the Arizona shooting.
Broader Implications
The Sullivan decision has long shielded media organizations from defamation claims by public figures, but its reconsideration has been advocated by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. They have pointed to changes in the media landscape, including the proliferation of cable TV news, online media, and the spread of disinformation, as reasons to revisit the ruling.
Final Thoughts: What This Means for You
For the average person, understanding the nuances of this case is crucial. Here’s a simple breakdown:
- Sarah Palin vs. New York Times: Palin alleges that the Times published defamatory content linking her to a mass shooting without evidence.
- Legal Significance: The case could alter the standards for proving defamation against public figures, potentially making it easier for them to win such lawsuits.
- Practical Impact: If the standards for defamation claims are lowered, media outlets might become more cautious in their reporting, which could affect the information available to the public.
This case underscores the delicate balance between protecting free speech and holding media accountable for false reporting. As the retrial unfolds, its outcome could have lasting repercussions on the relationship between public figures and the press, influencing how news is reported and consumed in the future.