Sarah Palin and The New York Times return to court Monday for a retrial in the former Alaska governor’s defamation lawsuit, nearly eight years after the newspaper published an editorial that wrongly linked her to a mass shooting.
The case stems from a June 14, 2017, editorial titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” published hours after a far-Left opened fire on Republican lawmakers at a baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia.
In the piece, The Times incorrectly suggested Palin’s political action committee incited the 2011 shooting that seriously wounded Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others.
James Bennet, then the editorial page editor, added language claiming a “clear” link between the shooting and a map from Palin’s PAC that had placed crosshairs over certain Democratic congressional districts, including Giffords’. The Times issued a correction approximately 14 hours later, acknowledging “no such link was established.”
“That reference was an unintended error, and quickly corrected,” Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said. “We’re confident we will prevail.”
Palin’s 2022 trial ended with a jury finding the newspaper not liable for defamation. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff made several controversial decisions during the proceedings, including announcing his plan to dismiss the case before the jury reached its verdict. Some jurors later admitted to seeing news alerts about Rakoff’s planned dismissal.
In August 2024, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict and ordered a retrial, citing Rakoff’s procedural errors. The appeals court found that Rakoff wrongly excluded evidence Palin offered to show Bennet knew she did not incite the shooting and improperly barred evidence about Bennet’s relationship with his brother, Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.
“We come into this case with our eyes wide open and keenly aware of the fact that we’re fighting an uphill battle,” said Palin’s attorney Shane Vogt during the first trial, acknowledging the challenge of winning in a heavily Democratic jurisdiction.
The retrial comes amid a shifting legal landscape for media defamation cases. Several news organizations have recently settled high-profile defamation claims, including CNN’s $5 million settlement with a security contractor and ABC’s $15 million payment to President Donald Trump over an on-air misstatement about E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit.
“The capitulation in the ABC case and other Trump-related litigation suggests deep-pocketed defendants are nervous about facing jurors anywhere,” said David Logan, dean emeritus of the Roger Williams University School of Law.
The case has broader implications for press freedom. Palin’s legal team has openly stated its desire to challenge New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision that requires public figures to prove “actual malice” – knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth – in defamation cases.
However, the appeals court ruled that Palin waived this argument by waiting too long to raise it.
“The heart of this case is how much freedom the media has to make a mistake, correct it and move on,” said Roy Gutterman, a professor at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Public Communications.
Bennet testified in the first trial that he didn’t intend to blame Palin for the shooting but was working under deadline pressure. “What I wasn’t trying to say was that there was a direct causal link between this map and the shooting,” he said.
Palin claimed the editorial caused her “damage to her reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, mental suffering, shame and emotional distress.” During her testimony, she said, “It’s hard to lay your head on the pillow and have restful nights when you know that lies are told about you.”
The retrial is expected to last at least five days with Palin again taking the stand. The jury will be drawn from parts of New York City and northern suburbs that heavily lean Democratic.
The Times hasn’t lost a libel case in the United States since the early 1960s.
Judge Rakoff, who presided over the first trial despite his procedural missteps, will again oversee the proceedings.