Sarah Palin v. New York Times is a defamation lawsuit the former Alaska governor filed in June 2017 over a Times editorial that falsely linked her political action committee to the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona. Two juries have now found the newspaper not liable, an appeals court threw out the first verdict and ordered a retrial, and in December 2025 the trial judge denied Palin’s motions for judgment in her favor or a third trial. The case is a leading modern test of the “actual malice” standard that public figures must meet to win a libel claim.
The Editorial That Started the Case
On June 14, 2017, the day a gunman shot Representative Steve Scalise at a congressional baseball practice, the New York Times published an editorial titled “America’s Lethal Politics.” The piece compared the Scalise attack to the 2011 shooting in Tucson that killed six people and gravely wounded Representative Gabby Giffords, and it stated that “the link to political incitement was clear” before the 2011 shooting. It pointed to a map circulated by Palin’s PAC that placed “stylized cross hairs” over 20 Democratic congressional districts, including Giffords’s.1Columbia Journalism Review. How the New York Times Editorial Page Got Sued by Sarah Palin
No such link had ever been established. The Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was widely understood to have been driven by severe mental illness. The editorial’s original draft, by Times staffer Elizabeth Williamson, mentioned the map but stopped short of asserting a causal connection. James Bennet, then the paper’s editorial page editor, rewrote the piece under deadline pressure and inserted the “clear” link language. Williamson later testified Bennet had originally planned only to leave notes for other editors but decided to rewrite the editorial himself to publish it the same day.2NPR. Sarah Palin New York Times Defamation Case
Less than 14 hours after publication, the Times issued a correction acknowledging it had “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting” and had inaccurately described the map.3NPR. New York Times Alaska Governor Sarah Palin Libel Palin’s lawyers would later argue the correction was inadequate because it did not name her.4Canadian Lawyer Magazine. Manhattan Jury Hands New York Times Win Over Sarah Palin in Defamation Tussle
The Lawsuit and the Standard Palin Had to Meet
Palin filed suit on June 27, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 17-cv-4853, before Judge Jed S. Rakoff. The defendants were the New York Times Company and, after a later amendment, Bennet personally. Palin sought unspecified damages, alleging that the editorial damaged her reputation, caused her mental anguish, and led to an increase in death threats.5CourtListener. Palin v. The New York Times Company3NPR. New York Times Alaska Governor Sarah Palin Libel
As a former governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Palin is a public figure. Under the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a public figure suing for defamation must prove “actual malice”: that the publisher either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false.6Oyez. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan The parties stipulated that the relevant state of mind was Bennet’s, the editor who rewrote the piece.7Justia. Palin v. New York Times Co.
Judge Rakoff initially dismissed the complaint, but the Second Circuit reinstated it in 2019, and the case moved toward trial.7Justia. Palin v. New York Times Co.
The 2022 Trial and How It Fell Apart
The first trial took place in February 2022 and lasted about two weeks. Palin’s team argued that Bennet knew the claims were false or was reckless about their truth. The Times argued the errors were an honest mistake made under deadline and corrected promptly.
What happened at the end was unusual. After the close of evidence on February 10, the Times moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50. On February 14, while the jury was still deliberating, Judge Rakoff ruled for the defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. He told the parties outside the jury’s presence and said he would enter formal judgment only after the jurors finished, hoping to preserve an independent verdict for appeal.7Justia. Palin v. New York Times Co.
That did not work. Several jurors saw push notifications on their smartphones reporting Rakoff’s ruling while they were still deliberating.8SDNY Blog. Second Circuit: Push Notifications to Jurors Before Their Verdict Requires Retrial The jury returned a “not liable” verdict after about two hours, matching the judge’s own conclusion.9KCRA. Sarah Palin Libel Lawsuit Verdict
The Second Circuit Orders a New Trial
Palin appealed. On August 28, 2024, the Second Circuit vacated both the Rule 50 judgment and the jury verdict and sent the case back for a new trial. The appellate opinion identified four problems that “impugn the reliability” of the first outcome.10ABC7. Sarah Palin Defamation Case
The court held that Rakoff’s Rule 50 dismissal “improperly intruded on the province of the jury” by making credibility calls and weighing evidence. It found the trial judge wrongly excluded evidence relevant to Bennet’s state of mind, including material about his brother, Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, and articles from outlets under the same corporate umbrella as The Atlantic, where Bennet had been editor-in-chief. It identified inaccurate jury instructions and a legally erroneous answer to a jury question during deliberations. And it held that jurors learning of the Rule 50 ruling through phone notifications was prejudicial, reasoning that “an average jury’s verdict would be affected if several jurors knew that the judge had already ruled for one of the parties on the very claims the jurors were charged with deciding.”7Justia. Palin v. New York Times Co.8SDNY Blog. Second Circuit: Push Notifications to Jurors Before Their Verdict Requires Retrial
The Second Circuit also said a “strong inference of actual malice” could be drawn from the evidence and that a reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, a more plaintiff-friendly reading than Rakoff’s.11Courthouse News Service. 2nd Circuit Grants Sarah Palin a New Defamation Trial Against New York Times
The 2025 Retrial and Second Verdict
Jury selection for the retrial began April 14, 2025. Palin’s attorneys, led by Kenneth Turkel, introduced evidence excluded from the first trial, including material about the 2011 shooting’s lack of connection to political rhetoric.12Law360. Palin NYT Retrial Delves Into Evidence Not Seen by First Jury
Bennet took the stand and, by multiple accounts, tearfully apologized, saying he was “tormented” by the 2017 error and had worked urgently to correct it. He also addressed the Times‘s decision not to formally apologize to Palin, citing a “longstanding policy” against apologies alongside corrections to keep them from becoming “meaningless and rote.”13Courthouse News Service. Ex-New York Times Opinion Editor Grilled on Erroneous Rewrite in Palin Libel Retrial Palin testified about the toll the editorial had taken on her life, including increased death threats and effects on her mental well-being.
In closing arguments, Turkel urged jurors to “find a number and let her get some closure to this thing.” Defense attorney Felicia Ellsworth countered that there was “not one shred of evidence” of anything beyond an honest mistake corrected within 14 hours.3NPR. New York Times Alaska Governor Sarah Palin Libel
On April 22, 2025, the second jury reached the same result as the first: the Times was not liable. Deliberations again lasted just over two hours.14Reuters. Jury Finds NY Times Not Liable in Sarah Palin Defamation Case Leaving court, Palin told reporters, “I get to go home to a beautiful family of five kids and grandkids and a beautiful property and get on with life. And that’s nice.” She later wrote on social media that she intended to “keep asking the press to quit making things up.”3NPR. New York Times Alaska Governor Sarah Palin Libel
Where the Case Stands Now
Palin did not accept the second verdict. She filed motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing that the Second Circuit’s 2024 ruling had effectively established the editorial’s statements as defamatory as a matter of law and that the trial court had erred by letting the jury decide otherwise. She also renewed a request that Judge Rakoff recuse himself.15FindLaw. Palin v. New York Times Company
On December 15, 2025, Rakoff denied all of Palin’s post-trial motions. He rejected her reading of the appellate opinion, writing that the Second Circuit had not decided the question of defamatory meaning as a matter of law and that it properly went to the jury. On the recusal request, he pointed to transcripts showing he “frequently ruled in Palin’s favor during the trials” and said he had been “scrupulous” in ensuring a fair proceeding.16Politico. Judge Refuses to Grant Sarah Palin a New Trial in Her Libel Lawsuit Against the New York Times A Times spokesperson said the decision “reaffirms the jury’s decision” that the paper did not defame Palin.14Reuters. Jury Finds NY Times Not Liable in Sarah Palin Defamation Case
The docket remains active as of mid-2026.5CourtListener. Palin v. The New York Times Company After the April 2025 verdict, Turkel said the team would “evaluate whether to appeal again,” though no further appellate action has been confirmed in the record.
What the Case Means for the Actual Malice Standard
Palin’s suit has not reached the U.S. Supreme Court, but it has become a reference point in an ongoing debate over whether Sullivan should be reconsidered. The 1964 ruling reversed a $500,000 Alabama jury award against the Times in a Civil Rights-era libel case and set the actual malice bar for public officials.17Justia. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Two sitting justices have called for revisiting the doctrine. In a 2021 dissent from denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the actual malice requirement lacks a basis in the “text, history, or structure of the Constitution” and shields those who spread lies. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing separately, argued that the rise of social media had turned the standard into an “ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods,” pointing to a drop in defamation trials from an average of 27 per year in the 1980s to three in 2018.18Supreme Court of the United States. Berisha v. Lawson, Dissent From Denial of Certiorari
Some commentators have read the Second Circuit’s 2024 opinion in Palin’s case as a sign that lower courts may be applying reckless disregard more flexibly, making it easier for defamation plaintiffs to get to a jury even under the existing standard.19First Amendment Watch. Sarah Palin Case May Indicate Cracks in NYT v. Sullivan Actual Malice Test For now, though, two juries have looked at the same set of admitted factual errors and concluded that they did not amount to constitutional malice.