Palin’s N.Y. Times Defamation Suit to Be Dismissed by Judge (2)

A federal judge said he would throw out a defamation suit filed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin against the New York Times -- even as jurors continue to deliberate it.

The Manhattan judge said Monday that Palin failed to present enough evidence to prove that the the newspaper knowingly or recklessly published falsehoods about her when it ran a 2017 opinion piece incorrectly linking her to a deadly shooting. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said he would allow the jury, which began deliberations in the case on Friday, to reach a verdict but would dismiss the case afterward regardless of its decision.

“OK, we’re not going to make a statement yet because the jury still has it in front of them,” Palin said outside the courthouse.

It’s the second time Rakoff has rejected Palin’s claims. The judge dismissed the case in 2017, just two months after it was filed, in a ruling was later reversed by a federal appeals court.

“He is sending a message” by choosing to announce his ruling before a verdict, said Barbara Wahl, a lawyer with experience in defamation cases. “He’s saying, OK, I heard all of the evidence and my mind is not changed. The evidence is as weak as I thought it was.”

A Times spokeswoman said the company welcomes the judge’s decision.

“It is a reaffirmation of a fundamental tenet of American law: public figures should not be permitted to use libel suits to punish or intimidate news organizations that make, acknowledge and swiftly correct unintentional errors,” Danielle Rhoades Ha said in a statement.

At the end of the day, Rakoff instructed jurors, as he has in the past, not to read any press about the case or discuss it with anyone outside the jury room. He is hoping they don’t learn the case has been taken out of their hands.

“Some of them might not be too happy about it if they go the other direction” and bring back a verdict against the Times and in favor of Palin, said Wahl, a partner with the law firm Arent Fox LLP.

if the jury rules in favor of Palin, it would then be up to the federal appeals court in Manhattan to choose between the two outcomes.

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee had accused the newspaper and former opinion page editor James Bennet of disregarding the truth in order to purse a biased narrative about her when it published a 2017 opinion piece incorrectly linking her to a deadly shooting. The Times and Bennet had argued that it made honest mistakes that it corrected less than a day after publication.

Rakoff said Palin failed to show “that Mr. Bennet either knew that the challenged statements were false, or that there was a high probability they were false and he recklessly disregarded that possibility.” That’s the so-called “actual malice” standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court for public figures like Palin in its landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.

Read more: Palin Takes on N.Y. Times in Trial Targeting Press Protections

That standard has made it very hard for political figures to sue news outlets for defamation, and Rakoff’s decision is likely to inflame conservative opinion on the issue. Palin has suggested she saw her case in part as a vehicle to try to get the law changed by today’s more conservative high court. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have said it’s time to reexamine the Sullivan case.

Palin sued the Times and Bennet over a piece entitled “America’s Lethal Politics” that was published in June 2017, after a gunman opened fire in Alexandria, Virginia, on Republicans practicing for a congressional baseball game, seriously wounding U.S. Representative Steve Scalise, the current House minority whip.

Bennet inserted language into the piece suggesting a map published by Palin’s political action committe helped incite a 2011 shooting in Tuscon, Arizona, in which six people were killed and 14 wounded, including then-U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. An investigation later determined the shooter, who was mentally ill, had anger at Giffords unrelated to the map.

Palin said the piece caused her great emotional distress. “It was devastating to read, again, an accusation, a false accusation, that I had anything to do with murder, murdering innocent people,” Palin testified. “And I felt powerless.”

Bennet testified that he didn’t have any intention to harm her or mislead readers. He also said he didn’t believe the piece blamed Palin for inciting the shooting. In addition to Bennet, jurors also heard from several current and former Times opinion writers and editors who had worked on the piece.

‘Unfortunate Editorializing’

David Axelrod, a lawyer for the Times, also tried to show that Palin’s reputation had not been harmed by the piece, as her suit had claimed. He questioned her about the possibility that she might challenge U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a moderate Republican, in a primary this year and also about her 2020 appearance on “The Masked Singer.”

Though he said Palin’s case didn’t meet the legal standard for defamation, Rakoff also criticized the Times.

“Ms. Palin was subjected to an ultimately unsupported and serious allegation,” he said. “I think this is an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times.”

The case is Palin v. New York Times Co., 17-cv-04853, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

(Updates with quote from Palin, comment by New York Times)

To contact the reporter on this story:
Bob Van Voris in federal court in Manhattan at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Katia Porzecanski at kporzecansk1@bloomberg.net

Anthony Lin, Peter Blumberg

© 2022 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.