Judge Sides With NYT in Sarah Palin Defamation Case, Cites no Malice From Media Outlet

Judge Jed Rakoff, who is overseeing the defamation lawsuit of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin against the New York Times, sided with the media outlet, citing there was not enough evidence to prove a key element of the accuser's case.

The judge's ruling came while the jury was still deliberating over a verdict and Rakoff said that he will let the jury continue their discussions and will dismiss the case afterward. The judge presented his findings that set a path towards an inevitable appeals process.

The Times vs Palin

Rakoff said that Palin's team was not able to prove that there was actual malice, which is the standard that her legal counsel had to meet in her defamation case. The controversy, which began in 1964, specifies that public figures who sue for defamation must first prove that the offender knew the claim was false or showed "reckless disregard" for the truth.

Previously, the Times said that it had made an honest mistake involving Palin and immediately issued a correction. However, the former governor argued that the media outlet knew about the truth and used the publication to smear her on purpose, as per CNN.

The incident was caused by the Times allegedly unfairly linking Palin to the 2011 mass shooting that resulted in the death of six people and the injury of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords. While the judge will let the jury finish their deliberations, they will not be notified of his ruling to dismiss the case afterward.

An attorney for the accuser, Palin, did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Judge Rakoff's ruling. The former Alaska governor sued the Times in 2017 for unspecified damages because their linking of her to the mass shooting damaged her career as a political commentator.

According to Fox News, the Times released an editorial that before the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona, Palin's political action committee had contributed to an atmosphere of violence. The media outlet said this was done by circulating a map of electoral districts that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

Dismissed Case

But two days later after the publication of the editorial, the Times issued a correction, saying that it "incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting." The media outlet said that it had also "incorrectly described" the map.

Rakoff said that the law set a very high standard for actual malice but also argued that the Times made a series of poor decisions at the time. He added that the case was an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the media outlet. The judge said he was "hardly surprised" that Palin sued the Times.

However, he said that it was not the focus of the court to see if mistakes were made by the media outlet but to determine whether or not there was malice in the incident. The executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, George Freeman, said that while Rakoff had already made a decision based on the lack of evidence from Palin's team, he may have sown confusion in the case, the New York Times reported.