Sarah Palin lost her bid for a new defamation suit against The New York Times on Tuesday, with a judge ruling that she had not introduced “any” evidence needed to prove that the newspaper had been defamed in a 2017 editorial.
The written decision of U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff said that while mistakes were made when publishers rushed to meet deadlines, “a mistake is not enough to win if it was not motivated by real malice. “
Real malice is the legal limit set by the Supreme Court that a public figure like Ms. Palin must prove to win a defamation case. This would mean that The Times knew that he was publishing false information or that he recklessly ignored the evidence even though he had doubts about the truth of what he published.
“The most surprising thing about the trial here was that Palin, despite all his previous claims, was ultimately unable to introduce any of that evidence,” Judge Rakoff wrote. “Palin’s motion is denied in its entirety.”
Ms. Palin’s attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“We are pleased to see the court’s decision and are confident that the judge and jury will decide the case fairly and correctly,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for The Times.
The defamation suit of Ms. Palin, a former Republican presidential candidate and governor of Alaska, focused on an editorial that falsely linked the rhetoric of her campaign to a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona. The Times corrected the editorial the day after its publication.
Mrs. Palin claimed the publisher had been detrimental to his reputation and career. Lawyers for The Times said it was an “honest mistake” and that there was never any intention to harm Ms Palin.
The trial came at a time when people who believe journalists should be held accountable for doing something wrong have been pressuring the Supreme Court to reconsider the matter. The current defamation standard was set in the 1964 case of The New York Times Company v. Sullivan.
The end of the trial was not without drama. While the jury’s deliberations were underway on February 14, Judge Rakoff announced that he intended to dismiss the lawsuit, even if the jury ruled in favor of Ms. Palin, because he had not shown that The Times he acted out of real malice. The next day, the jury rejected Ms. Palin’s lawsuit.
It was later revealed that several jurors had learned of Judge Rakoff’s decision while they were still deliberating, thanks to push notifications on their cell phones. But in a later order, Judge Rakoff said several jurors had told the court clerk that the notifications “had not affected them in any way or played any role in their deliberations.”
Ms. Palin’s attorneys cited the timing of Judge Rakoff’s announcement as one of the reasons why a new trial should be held. Ms. Palin may appeal, but appellate courts are often deferred to jury decisions.
In April, Ms. Palin announced her candidacy for the Alaska Congress to return to national politics. He will join a crowded field of nearly 40 candidates to fill the House seat left vacant by Rep. Don Young, who died in March.