Jury Rules New York Times Didn’t Defame Palin

Jury Rules New York Times Didn’t Defame Palin \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A Manhattan jury found The New York Times not liable for defaming Sarah Palin over a 2017 editorial she claimed damaged her reputation. The verdict concluded a high-profile trial revived after appellate intervention. Palin had sought damages, alleging the article falsely linked her to inciting political violence.

Quick Looks

• Jury ruled The New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial.
• Palin alleged the article falsely linked her PAC to political violence.
• The editorial followed the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise.
• The Times issued a correction within 14 hours, disavowing the claims.
• Former editor James Bennet apologized on the stand, calling it an honest mistake.
• Palin claimed increased death threats and emotional distress from the editorial.
• The judge had previously dismissed the case, but it was reinstated by appeal.
• Jury found no “actual malice,” the legal threshold for public figure defamation.

Deep Look

In a closely watched trial that pitted press freedom against reputational rights, a federal jury in Manhattan ruled Tuesday that The New York Times did not defame former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial that incorrectly linked her political rhetoric to a deadly mass shooting.

The verdict, delivered after just over two hours of deliberation, marked the end of a yearslong legal battle that once threatened to become a landmark First Amendment case.

Palin had accused the Times of libel, arguing that an editorial published after a 2017 shooting that injured Rep. Steve Scalise falsely implicated her in inciting violence. She claimed that a map released by her political action committee (PAC), featuring crosshairs over certain congressional districts, was wrongfully tied to the 2011 Arizona shooting that critically injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others.

The Editorial and the Fallout

The original editorial, published in June 2017, suggested that Palin’s PAC had contributed to an atmosphere that could encourage political violence. Although the Times issued a correction within 14 hours, clarifying there was no proven connection between the map and the 2011 shooting, Palin filed suit for unspecified damages, alleging the damage had already been done.

“She doesn’t cry a lot,” Palin’s attorney Kenneth Turkel told the jury. “It may have been to them an honest mistake. For her, it was a life changer.”

Palin testified that she experienced a surge in death threats and emotional distress, saying the editorial lowered her public standing and impacted her personal well-being.

Legal Arguments and the Malice Standard

To succeed, Palin had to meet the “actual malice” standard set by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which requires public figures to prove that false statements were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Palin’s legal team argued that James Bennet, then-editorial page director, either knew the information was false or failed to verify it before publication.

“There’s been no accountability,” Turkel told the jury. “That’s why we’re here.”

But Times attorney Felicia Ellsworth countered that there was “not one shred of evidence” suggesting Bennet knowingly published falsehoods. Instead, she framed the error as an unfortunate but honest editorial oversight.

“To Governor Palin, this is just another opportunity to take on fake news. To James Bennet, the truth matters,” Ellsworth told the jury.

Bennet, visibly emotional during testimony, apologized to Palin, stating he was tormented by the mistake and worked quickly to publish a correction once the error was flagged by readers.

A Case Reopened After Appellate Review

The trial followed an unusual legal journey. In February 2022, Judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissed the case while the jury was still deliberating, arguing that Palin had failed to prove actual malice.

The jury subsequently delivered a verdict that agreed with the judge. However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case in 2023, ruling that Rakoff’s early dismissal had infringed upon the jury’s role. The court also noted trial irregularities, including an exclusion of evidence, a flawed jury instruction, and an improper response to a juror question.

As a result, the trial was reopened, drawing renewed media attention and sparking debate over media accountability, defamation standards, and public figure protections.

What the Verdict Means

For Palin, the ruling is a setback in her years-long legal battle for vindication. For the media, it reaffirms the strong protections afforded under the First Amendment, particularly for editorial content and public discourse surrounding political figures.

Legal analysts suggest that the case, while dramatic, did not set a new legal precedent but did highlight growing tensions between press freedoms and reputational harm in a polarized media environment.

Despite her loss, Palin’s supporters say her lawsuit spotlighted what they see as editorial bias and carelessness in legacy media.

For The New York Times, the outcome is a legal relief but a cautionary reminder of the high stakes involved in political commentary, even when intentions are benign.

What Happens Next?

• Palin has the option to appeal the jury verdict, though chances of reversal are slim.
• The case is unlikely to escalate to the Supreme Court, but will be studied by future media law scholars.
• The verdict reinforces the “actual malice” doctrine, a key barrier against media defamation suits.
• Editors and newsrooms may tighten internal vetting processes, even for opinion pieces.
• The conversation around media trust and accountability remains far from over.

More on US News