Palin Rematch With NY Times Hangs on New Libel Evidence (1)

The New York Times’ opinion editor knew that former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin didn’t incite the shooting of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords but suggested it anyway, a Palin attorney argued in opening statements of her libel re-trial against the newspaper Tuesday.

Under US Supreme Court precedent, Palin must show the Times engaged in “actual malice” by acting with a reckless disregard for the truth or knowing their information was wrong but running it anyway.

While the trial is a rematch versus editor James Bennet and the paper, she has new material this time. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, overturning an earlier decision for the Times, said the trial judge wrongly excluded evidence.

Among that evidence is information on Bennet’s brother—Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)—and articles about the Giffords shooting from The Atlantic.

Bloomberg Law subscribers can sign up to get New York Brief in their inboxes every morning.

Family Ties

Palin’s legal team made use of the new evidence in their opening, with Palin attorney Shane Vogt saying jurors would hear in the trial that James Bennet had a “personal connection” to laying blame on Palin for the shooting. Michael Bennet is a Democrat while Palin is a Republican. Threats were also made against Michael Bennet’s office around the time of the Giffords shooting, Vogt said. Palin supported Bennet’s Republican opponent.

James Bennet was editor of The Atlantic when the magazine ran a piece after the Giffords shooting saying there wasn’t a link between politics and the attack, Palin’s attorney also said. The piece said the shooter was mentally ill.

New York Times attorney Felicia Ellsworth argued the editorial at issue in the libel case made an inadvertent mistake that Bennet agonized over and quickly had corrected.

Palin “would like this case to be about Bennet’s brother,” Ellsworth said. She wants this case to be about how unfairly she feels the media has treated her, Ellsworth said, saying those are distractions.

“Freedom of speech protects people who make a mistake,” Ellsworth said. Palin’s attorney objected to that statement but was overruled.

Judge Trying to Block Notifications

The appeals court also tossed the earlier verdict for the Times because jurors learned through smartphone push notifications that Judge Jed Rakoff announced he planned to dismiss the case while they were deliberating.

Rakoff was trying to avoid a repeat. Before a break Tuesday, he told attorneys a juror had relinquished an Apple watch. Another juror wore a Fitbit but assured the court it didn’t get push notifications, Rakoff said

The case is Palin v. The N.Y. Times Co., S.D.N.Y., 1:17-cv-04853, 4/15/25.