A federal court has breathed new life into a defamation lawsuit filed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin against The New York Times. The lawsuit, originally dismissed by a lower court in February 2022, was resurrected by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, which found several errors in the lower court’s handling of the case.
Palin’s lawsuit stems from a 2017 editorial published by The New York Times that claimed her campaign encouraged the 2011 shooting of then-Representative Gabby Giffords. The editorial, published on the day of a mass shooting at a congressional baseball practice game, suggested a connection between Palin’s rhetoric and the attack, a claim that was never substantiated. Palin sued the newspaper, alleging its staff intentionally published false information to damage her reputation.
While the lower court dismissed the lawsuit during jury deliberations, the appellate court found that the judge’s dismissal notification to the jury likely influenced their verdict. The court stated, “We have no difficulty concluding that an average jury’s verdict would be affected if several jurors knew that the judge had already ruled for one of the parties on the very claims the jurors were charged with deciding.” The court also raised concerns about restrictions placed on Palin’s claim that the editorial’s editor, James Bennet, allowed the unsubstantiated claims against her to politically benefit his brother, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.
Palin’s legal team hailed the ruling as a “significant step forward” in holding publishers accountable for misleading content. The New York Times, however, called the decision “disappointing” but expressed confidence in their case during a retrial. Importantly, the appeals court did not find the lower court judge biased against Palin and therefore allowed him to preside over the retrial.
The outcome of the retrial could have significant implications for the media landscape, particularly concerning the boundaries of free speech and the potential for defamation lawsuits. It will also be interesting to see how the court handles the potential political motivation behind the editorial and its impact on the case.
