• Sarah Palin has been granted a new trial in her defamation case against the New York Times.
• The case centers on a 2017 editorial that wrongly linked Palin to a 2011 mass shooting.
• The original case was dismissed as Palin did not provide clear evidence of the Times' actual malice.
• The case is seen as a potential vehicle to overturn the Sullivan decision, a landmark ruling that set a high bar for defamation claims.

Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, has been granted a new trial in her defamation case against the New York Times. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Palin on August 28, 2024, allowing her to once again attempt to prove that the Times should be held accountable for a 2017 editorial that erroneously linked her to a mass shooting that occurred six years prior.

The case revolves around an editorial published by the Times on June 14, 2017, titled America's Lethal Politics. The piece was published in the aftermath of a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, which resulted in injuries to Republican U.S. congressman Steve Scalise and others. The editorial addressed the issue of gun control and the rise of inflammatory political rhetoric.

It erroneously noted that prior to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, where Democratic US congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded, Palin's political action committee had published a map with crosshairs over Giffords' election district.

The Dispute and the Sullivan Decision

Palin took issue with the editorial, stating that the link to political incitement was clear, despite there being no evidence that the map motivated Jared Lee Loughner, the Arizona gunman. James Bennet, then the newspaper's editorial page editor, had added the disputed language. The Times corrected the editorial the next morning after readers and a columnist complained. Bennet was a defendant in Palin's case.

The original case was dismissed by US District Judge Jed Rakoff during the February 2022 trial. Rakoff ruled that Palin did not provide clear and convincing evidence of the Times' actual malice, a requirement for public figures to prove defamation. This standard originates from the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which aimed to protect free speech and press freedom by setting a high bar for such claims.

However, Palin's lawyers argued that Rakoff wrongly excluded evidence of the Times' actual malice and wrongly instructed jurors to disregard some of that evidence. The case has been viewed by media critics and Palin herself as a potential vehicle to overturn the Sullivan decision. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have urged a reconsideration of the Sullivan decision, citing changes in the media landscape, including the growth of cable TV news and online media and the spread of disinformation.

The Times' Response and Historical Context

The Times initially responded to Palin's lawsuit by stating that they had not reviewed the claim in detail but would defend against it vigorously. Lawyers for the Times argued that the newspaper and Bennet never intended to link Palin to the Arizona shooting.

This case is not the first time the New York Times has faced criticism for its handling of controversial op-eds. In June 2020, the newspaper faced backlash for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton, which led to the resignation of the editorial-page editor. The op-ed called for the deployment of the military to quell rioting following the death of George Floyd. The staffer who edited and fact-checked Cotton's piece was identified in a subsequent story, leading to threats against him.

In conclusion, the Palin case is a reminder of the delicate balance that news organizations must maintain between freedom of speech and responsible reporting. It underscores the importance of accuracy and fairness in journalism, and the potential consequences when these standards are not met. As the case proceeds, it will be closely watched for its potential impact on defamation law and the standards that public figures must meet to prove defamation.