Sarah Palin’s defamation retrial against The New York Times begins

• Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against The New York Times for an editorial piece on gun control has begun after the case was revived by a federal appeals court. The former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate lost her initial trial, but in August 2024 the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ordered a retrial, citing several rulings by a judge in that it said tainted the initial trial.
• Palin argues the 2017 editorial piece implies that she incited a mass shooting in Arizona that killed six people and severely injured Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords.
• She is seeking punitive and compensatory damages from the Times.

Full Story

Opening statements in Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit retrial against The New York Times began on Tuesday, April 15.

The lawsuit accuses NYT of defaming the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate in a 2017 opinion piece about gun control.

The 61-year-old Palin, who ran unsuccessfully on a ticket with former Sen. John McCain against former President Barack Obama, lost her first trial against the Times and the former editorial page editor of the publication, James Bennet, back in 2022.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

A new trial?

However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled in August 2024 that the verdict was tainted because of several errors by the judge in the previous case and ordered a retrial.

The retrial will now take place in front of U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan, the same judge who oversaw the first trial, and in front of a jury of nine people, including five women and four men. Testimony in the case is expected to take about a week before opening deliberations, according to Reuters.

The background of the case

Palin initially sued the Times after it published an editorial in June of 2017, with the headline “America’s Lethal Politics.” The piece allegedly implied that Palin could have inspired a mass shooting in Arizona in January 2011, where six people were killed and Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords was gravely injured.

Bennet says he was pressured into finding a “clear” link between the mass casualty event and a map from Palin’s political action committee, which put Giffords and other Democrats at risk of targeted violence.

The Times revised the editorial and issued an apology. Palin, however, says she suffered harm to her reputation and that the incident caused her mental anguish. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages as a result.

How is the Times responding now?

A Times spokesperson previously argued Palin’s lawsuit references “a passing reference to an event in an editorial” that was not about her.

“That reference was an unintended error, and quickly corrected,” said Charlie Stadlander, the Times spokesperson. “We’re confident we will prevail.”

What other details are important?

In its decision to order a retrial, the federal appeals court said Rakoff wrongly left out evidence she offered to show Bennet knew she did not incite the mass shooting. It also found Rakoff’s exclusion of evidence about Bennet’s relationship with his brother Michael Bennet, a Democratic senator from Colorado, that could be used by Palin to argue for potential bias.

Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

Enter your email for newsletter updates Subscribe

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

What does it have to do with the Supreme Court?

Palin is reportedly using the case in the hopes of overturning The New York Times v. Sullivan U.S. Supreme Court case of 1964. In that case, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision that, in order to win a defamation lawsuit, a public figure must show the person accused of making the defamatory statement intended “actual malice,” which would indicate the alleged offender wrote it with the knowledge it was untrue, or with reckless disregard to the validity of the claim.

However, the court did rule that Palin’s argument for “actual malice” no longer applied because she waited too long to challenge the Supreme Court precedent.

The Supreme Court last month refused an attempt by Steve Wynn, an American real estate developer, to end defamation protections established in the 1964 case, which President Donald Trump has also raised concerns about.