Sarah Palin’s fight against The New York Times reignites as a federal judge sets a new trial date, exposing the ongoing battle between conservative figures and mainstream media.
At a Glance
- Sarah Palin’s libel case against The New York Times is set for retrial on April 14, 2025
- The case stems from a 2017 editorial linking Palin’s rhetoric to a mass shooting
- An appeals court criticized the initial dismissal, citing errors in the first trial
- Both parties are considering mediation to potentially settle before the trial
- The case highlights the ongoing tension between public figures and media accountability
The Battle Continues: Palin vs. The New York Times
You thought it was over – but it’s not.
Sarah Palin’s longstanding legal battle against The New York Times has been reignited. A federal judge has scheduled a retrial for April 14, 2025, breathing new life into a case that has become a flashpoint in the debate over media accountability and the limits of free speech. This development comes after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the initial dismissal, citing critical errors in the first trial.
The heart of the matter lies in a 2017 editorial published by The New York Times, which erroneously linked Palin’s campaign rhetoric to the 2011 mass shooting that injured former Representative Gabrielle Giffords. While the Times admitted to the inaccuracy and promptly issued a correction, calling it an “honest mistake,” Palin maintained that the damage had already been done. This case has since become a rallying point for conservatives who argue that mainstream media outlets often escape accountability for their alleged biases and errors.
Sarah Palin's retrial against The New York Times over defamation claims will start April 14, a New York federal judge ruled Tuesday after calling the parties' requests for a July date "out of the question." https://t.co/cXJ3uSsPoj
— Law360 (@Law360) November 13, 2024
A Second Chance at Justice
The decision to grant a retrial stems from the appeals court’s scathing criticism of Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s handling of the initial case. The court found that Rakoff had overstepped by making credibility determinations and overlooking evidence that could potentially support Palin’s claims. Moreover, the timing of Rakoff’s dismissal during jury deliberations raised concerns about the verdict’s integrity, as jurors may have been influenced by cellphone alerts about the judge’s decision.
Axelrod hinted at the possibility of a settlement between the two parties, with both sides having expressed interest in resolving the matter before the trial date, recognizing the challenges of locating witnesses and maintaining the case’s momentum over time. Judge Rakoff, seemingly eager to see the case resolved, has even proposed involving a magistrate judge to facilitate settlement discussions.
“It may be that we don’t need a trial at all,” David L. Axelrod, a lawyer representing the Times said.
Sarah Palin and the New York Times explored settling the former Alaska governor's defamation case against the newspaper, their lawyers said. US District Judge Jed Rakoff scheduled a retrial for April 14, 2025 https://t.co/mju94gaVtk pic.twitter.com/XFlAvDT2uQ
— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) November 13, 2024
The Broader Implications
This case goes beyond a simple dispute between Palin and The New York Times. It touches on fundamental issues of press freedom, the responsibility of media outlets in political discourse, and the standards for proving libel against public figures. The “actual malice” standard, established by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, requires public figures to prove that false statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. This high bar has long protected media outlets from libel claims by public figures.
Judge Rakoff’s encouragement of a settlement underscores the complexity and potential far-reaching consequences of this case. A verdict in Palin’s favor could potentially open the floodgates for similar lawsuits, potentially chilling press freedom and investigative journalism. On the other hand, a victory for The New York Times might be seen by some as further entrenching media impunity and bias against conservative figures.
“I’m all for that if you’re seriously interested in settling. You can settle it in a matter of days,” Judge Jed S. Rakoff said.
As both parties weigh their options, the possibility of mediation looms large. Kenneth G. Turkel, representing Palin, expressed willingness “to give it a shot” at settlement talks. T
For Palin and her supporters, this case represents a chance to hold what they perceive as a biased media accountable. For The New York Times, it’s about defending editorial practices and the broader principle of press freedom – or, at least, that’s what they’re saying…
