Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has lost her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. A federal jury reached its decision after just two hours of deliberation, ruling that the Times was not guilty of libel for incorrectly linking Palin to a 2011 mass shooting in an editorial published in 2017.
The editorial, titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” suggested a connection between Palin and the shooting but was later corrected by the Times just two days after its release. Throughout the trial, the Times maintained that the error was unintentional and a mistake.
Palin and her legal team argued that the Times acted with “actual malice” in publishing the editorial, which they claimed harmed her reputation. However, the jury sided with the Times, reaffirming that publishers are not held liable for honest mistakes. A spokesperson for the Times expressed gratitude to the jurors for their careful consideration of the case.
This lawsuit was not Palin’s first attempt to seek justice against the Times. An earlier trial in 2022 ended with U.S. Judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissing the case, but a federal appeals court later revived it, allowing for a retrial. During the retrial, Judge Rakoff noted that Palin did not meet the “actual malice” standard due to the Times’s prompt correction and the contrition expressed by then-editorial page editor James Bennet.
The legal standards for defamation, particularly for public figures, are high. The landmark 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan established that publishers cannot be held liable for false statements unless they acted with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
After the verdict, Palin indicated that she was unsure if she would appeal the decision. The outcome of this case highlights the challenges faced by public figures in defamation lawsuits, especially when trying to prove malice in the media.