Sarah Palin returned to court seeking another chance against The New York Times, but she left with another defeat.
Per Politico, a federal judge in New York denied the former Alaska governor’s request for a new libel trial against the Times and rejected her call for him to step aside from the case. This is the latest development in a legal battle that has lasted for years and has now delivered the same outcome twice: a jury did not accept Palin’s claim that the newspaper defamed her.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff stated in a written opinion that he ensured Palin received a fair trial last April, when a jury determined the Times did not defame her in a 2017 editorial. Palin argued she deserved another trial and also asked that Rakoff recuse himself. He refused.
Regarding the recusal request, Rakoff referred to the record. He pointed out that the trial transcript shows he often ruled in Palin’s favor during the proceedings, countering any idea that he was biased against her.
Palin first sued the Times in 2017, seeking damages. She claimed the newspaper defamed her in an editorial about gun control. This was published after Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana was shot at a congressional baseball team practice in Alexandria, Virginia, when a man with a history of anti-GOP activity opened fire.
In that editorial, the Times mentioned that before the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona, which injured former Representative Gabby Giffords and killed six others, Palin’s political action committee helped create an “atmosphere of violence” by sharing a map that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.
The Times corrected the piece less than 14 hours after it was published. The paper stated it had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting” and that it had “incorrectly described” the map.
Public figures cannot win libel suits simply by showing something was wrong. They must prove “actual malice,” which means the statement was published knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth.
A first jury sided with the Times, but the case did not end there. In February 2022, Rakoff stated that while the jury was deliberating in the first trial, he planned to dismiss the lawsuit because Palin had not demonstrated malice. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan later ordered a new trial, sending the case back for a redo.
That second trial took place last April, and the result was the same: another jury found that the Times did not libel Palin.
One moment in the retrial caught the attention of Palin’s supporters and her lawyers, even though it did not change the outcome. James Bennet, the former Times editorial page editor, apologized to Palin on the stand. He did so with emotion, saying he was distressed by the error and worked swiftly to fix it after receiving reader complaints.
In the judge’s opinion, nothing presented after the verdict warranted reopening the case. Rakoff’s ruling on Monday effectively keeps Palin where she has been for months: on the losing side of a high-profile libel battle that continues to test how difficult it is for public figures to win against major news organizations in court.
Palin, who was controversially chosen Republican VP nominee by Senator John McCain in 2008, has argued that the case was about her reputation and what she views as a pattern of media bias but the judge and juries saw it differently.
