Sarah Palin's Lawsuit Against NYT Revived

In a significant legal development, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan has reinstated Sarah Palin’s libel lawsuit against The New York Times, citing multiple judicial errors by a lower court judge. The ruling marks a pivotal step in Palin's quest to hold media outlets accountable for publishing what she claims was misleading content.

Though the case is far from over — a new trial is to be had — let’s take a look at how we got back to square one and what we can expect in round two.

An Opinionated Editorial

The case Palin v. New York Times Co. is pretty much just what it sounds like: Sarah Palin brought a lawsuit against the New York Times, along with its former Opinion Editor, James Bennet. The former governor of Alaska alleges defamation. Specifically, her complaint centers on an editorial published by the Times on June 14, 2017, titled "America’s Lethal Politics.”

The op-ed compared two political shootings. One was the January 8, 2011 shooting by Jared Loughner. That incident resulted in the death of six people and injury to thirteen others, including a Democratic congresswoman. The other incident was the June 14, 2017 shooting by James Hodgkinson, which seriously injured four people, including a Republican congressman.

The editorial made specific statements about the Loughner shooting that became the subject of Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit. It claimed there was a "clear" and "direct" "link" between the Loughner shooting and a digital graphic published by Palin's political action committee in March 2010. Accompanying the text was a map with crosshairs over twenty congressional districts (including Giffords' district) that were represented by Democrats. The editorial suggested that this map and the associated political incitement were directly connected to the Loughner shooting.

Lawsuit and Trial

However, it was later established that no such link between the crosshairs map and the Loughner shooting had been proven. The attack was later pretty universally accepted to be a result of Loughner’s mental illness. The Times issued corrections to the editorial on June 15 and June 16, 2017, acknowledging that no link had been established between political incitement and the Giffords shooting. The publication also clarified in writing that it took the liberty of imposing the crosshairs on the congressional district maps.

Since being filed seven years ago, the case has gone through several stages, including multiple dismissals, reinstatements and a jury trial. The jury eventually found the Times and Bennet not liable for defamation, but it wasn’t through your typical, uninterrupted, jury deliberation. The process was a bit unsettled by District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who was overseeing the trial.

An Overeager Judge

On February 14, 2022, while the jury was still deliberating, Judge Rakoff ruled in favor of the defendants, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. He concluded that no reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Despite this ruling, the jury was allowed to reach a verdict, which found the Times and Bennet not liable.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it wasn’t long before the verdict was challenged. On appeal in February 2022, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the verdict. The court purported that vacating was necessary due to several trial errors. Among other issues, the panel ruled that the district court improperly intruded on the jury's role, excluded relevant evidence, provided inaccurate jury instructions, and mishandled a mid-deliberation jury question.

Second Circuit Steps In

The Second Circuit found that Judge Rakoff’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit while the jury was still deliberating improperly intruded on the jury’s work for several reasons. For one, it said that the district court improperly made credibility determinations, which is the exclusive province of the jury. For example, the district court credited James Bennet’s explanations and self-serving testimony, which the jury was not required to believe.

Secondly, the district court weighed the evidence, which is also the jury’s responsibility. The court should have considered all evidence in the light most favorable to Sarah Palin, the non-moving party, but instead, it assessed the evidence in a manner favorable to the defendants.

The district court also excluded relevant evidence that could have supported Palin’s claims, such as articles published by certain newspapers and evidence related to Bennet’s brother, who was a Senator. This exclusion limited the relevant inferences that Palin and the jury could draw in support of her claim.

Errors on Errors

Furthermore, the district court ignored inferences or facts that a reasonable juror could have found to support Palin’s case. For instance, the court dismissed the possibility that Bennet’s statement could be considered an admission that would support finding actual malice and ignored potential inferences from the evidence that could suggest Bennet acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

There were a few other flaws that the Second Circuit accused the district court of, such as providing an inaccurate jury instruction in response to a mid-deliberation question. The Second Circuit claimed that this may have caused the jury to misunderstand the standard for proving actual malice.

To make matters worse, during deliberations, some jurors received push notifications about the district court’s Rule 50 dismissal ruling. The Second Circuit found that this external influence likely affected the jury’s decision-making process, and could have influenced their verdict.

Round Two to Come

Overall, these actions by the district court were seen as usurping the jury’s role in determining the facts and assessing the credibility of witnesses. The only appropriate remedy, said the appellate court, was to vacate the Rule 50 judgment and the jury’s verdict, and then remand the case for a new trial.

The appellate court did not, however, grant Palin’s request to take Rakoff off the case on the grounds that he was biased against her, claiming that the politician had offered no proof of this. All this means that Palin will have to go through the trial process again – and hope that Rakoff is on better behavior this time.

Related Resources

• Radioactive Contamination Lawsuit Against U.S. Navy Sinks (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
• SCOTUS Expands Right to Sue Police Who Bring Baseless Charges (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
• Court Revives Religious Lawsuits Against Mayo Clinic's Vaccination Mandate (FindLaw's Federal Courts)