Sarah Palin’s defamation challenge against the New York Times failed again as a federal jury found the newspaper not liable for defamation. This is the second time a lawsuit against the newspaper has failed.
The First Trial
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin filed a defamation suit against the New York Times for a Times editorial titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” erroneously linking Palin’s political action committee efforts to a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona. Palin issued a map with crosshair imagery over certain Democratic districts to target where there should be efforts to turn those districts Republican in the midterm elections. In that shooting, Democrat Representative Gabby Giffords was shot in the head, and her aide was killed.
Palin claimed the newspaper tying her political rhetoric to the shooting acted with “actual malice” as required by the case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that a public figure can only prevail in a defamation lawsuit if they can prove “the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
After the Sullivan decision, a plaintiff must prove that:
- The statements were false
- The statements damaged their reputation, and
- The defendant who wrote the statements knew it was false or blatantly ignored information to the contrary
A Manhattan federal court dismissed Palin’s case in 2022 because she did not meet the standard of “actual malice.” Palin appealed.
The Appeal
In 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted Palin a new trial due to “several major issues at trial” such as excluding evidence and inaccurate jury communications and instructions.
The Retrial
While Palin’s lawyers asserted that the New York Times acted with actual malice in publishing “America’s Lethal Politics,” the newspaper claimed it made an “honest mistake” and pointed out their retraction to the piece the next day.
On Tuesday, a federal jury in New York found the New York Times not liable for defamation. New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said, “The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.”
While this is a victory for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the Sullivan standard continues to be challenged among public figures.
New York Times v. Sullivan Is Under Attack
In recent years, there have been efforts to overturn this decision. Conservative groups argue that it provides too much protection for media outlets and too little protection for defamed individuals.
Casino developer Steve Wynn brought a libel suit against the Associated Press for their coverage of women accusing Wynn of sexual assault in the 1970s. Although a trial court found Wynn was defamed, the defamation was not unlawful as the AP used information from police reports. Wynn then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. However, in March 2025, the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari and declined to hear the case.
In 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis claimed the press uses “Sullivan as a shield to intentionally smear politicians.” Also in 2023, Presidential candidate Donald Trump brought a defamation lawsuit against CNN for comparing Trump to Adolph Hitler. In Trump’s response to CNN’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, his lawyers asked for a reexamination of Sullivan because it “offers a nearly impenetrable shield to the media, allowing it to publish defamatory statements targeting political enemies, without fear of consequence.” His lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge ruling that the piece was one of opinion not fact.
Why the Sullivan Standard Matters
First Amendment advocates argue that changing the Sullivan standard would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
As more people get news and information from various sources other than large media outlets, there is more potential to silence critics of powerful figures. The New York Times could handle a defamation lawsuit, but the investigative journalist of a podcast can’t.
There is a question of whether the Supreme Court wants to weigh in on New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court dismissed an opportunity when denying the certiorari to the Wynn case. In that decision, Justice Thomas did not comment. However, in 2022, he wrote in another defamation case, “This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.”
Related Resources
- The First Amendment (FindLaw U.S. Constitution)
- Sarah Palin's Lawsuit Against NYT Revived (FindLaw Federal Courts)
- New York Times v. Sullivan History & Case Summary (FindLaw Supreme Court Insights)
