A federal jury ruled that the New York Times did not libel former Alaskan Republican Gov. Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial in the latest update to the years-long lawsuit.
The jury reached its decision after deliberating for about two hours following both sides delivering their closing arguments to the Manhattan federal court civil trial. The trial was in its second week.
In a comment to Fox News Digital, NYT spokesperson Danielle Rhoades said, “We want to thank the jurors for their careful deliberations. The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.”
SARAH PALIN TAKES WITNESS STAND IN LIBEL CASE VS. NEW YORK TIMES
Fox News Digital reached out to Palin’s legal team for comment. It is unclear yet whether she plans to appeal the decision.
Palin, who became a national figure as the 2008 Republican vice presidential pick of the late Sen. John McCain, first sued the paper in 2017 for defamation after claiming an editorial falsely linked her to the deadly 2011 mass shooting that wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., and killed six people. The editorial was published in response to the 2017 mass shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice that severely wounded Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.
The editorial was corrected the next day. Former editorial page editor James Bennet took responsibility for rushing the story and in tearful testimony last week apologized to Palin.
JUDGE SET TO DISMISS SARAH PALIN’S DEFAMATION CASE, SIDING WITH NEW YORK TIMES
This was the second time the New York Times was found not liable for defamation in this lawsuit brought by Palin. In 2022, a federal jury unanimously ruled in favor of the publication after U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff had already dismissed the case. Rakoff said at the time that since the case would inevitably be appealed, the court of appeals would benefit from knowing a jury’s decision despite his dismissal.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned this decision in 2024, finding that Rakoff’s decision to dismiss the case prior to the jury’s decision qualified the lawsuit for a retrial.
“We have no difficulty concluding 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,” 2nd Circuit Judge John Walker Jr. said at the time.