Sarah Palin Testifies in Defamation Case Against Times \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Sarah Palin testified in a Manhattan federal court, saying a 2017 New York Times editorial defamed her and left her feeling defenseless. She claims the article linked her political rhetoric to a mass shooting, despite a later correction. Palin seeks damages and hopes the press will be held accountable.
Quick Looks
- Sarah Palin says the 2017 New York Times editorial was “devastating.”
- The editorial linked her PAC’s imagery to the 2011 Arizona mass shooting.
- Palin said the error “kicked the oomph” out of her and led to death threats.
- The Times published a correction the next day but didn’t name Palin directly.
- Ex-editor James Bennet previously apologized on the witness stand, admitting fault.
- Palin remains a public figure, bestselling author, and Republican speaker.
- A 2022 jury sided with the Times, but an appeals court revived the case in 2023.
- Judge Rakoff said the jury will decide, rejecting motions for early rulings.
Deep Look
The defamation case of Sarah Palin v. The New York Times has resurfaced in a Manhattan courtroom, once again positioning the former Alaska governor at the center of a national conversation about the limits of press freedom, accountability in media, and the legal standard for libel against public figures.
Palin, a one-time Republican vice presidential nominee and former Fox News contributor, is seeking damages from The Times for a 2017 editorial that she says falsely connected her political rhetoric to mass violence—specifically, the 2011 shooting in Arizona that critically injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others.
Though The Times issued a correction within a day, Palin argues the damage was already done—and that for a brief but consequential moment, one of the most powerful voices in journalism publicly accused her of encouraging political violence.
“This was the gamechanger,” Palin testified. “I felt defenseless. It just kicked the oomph right out of you.”
Her return to the courtroom years after the original verdict underscores a renewed judicial interest in media law and a shifting political climate that is increasingly questioning the privileged legal status of media institutions.
The Editorial That Sparked a Lawsuit
The disputed editorial was published in June 2017, following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, a prominent House Republican, during a congressional baseball practice. The editorial aimed to highlight the dangers of heated political rhetoric and its potential to incite violence.
In doing so, it referenced a now-infamous map produced by Sarah Palin’s political action committee (SarahPAC) in 2010, which featured stylized crosshairs over congressional districts held by Democrats, including Giffords.
The editorial suggested a causal link between the map and the 2011 shooting, implying that Palin’s PAC had directly contributed to the violent climate that led to the tragedy. However, no evidence ever established such a link, and the editorial’s implication was factually incorrect.
The Times issued a correction within 24 hours, stating that the editorial “incorrectly stated that a link existed” and “incorrectly described the map.” But Palin maintains that the paper never directly named her in the correction, nor took meaningful steps to repair the reputational harm.
Legal Hurdles: Proving Actual Malice
Palin’s challenge is steep. As a public figure, she must meet the burden established in the landmark New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) ruling, which requires that a plaintiff prove the media outlet acted with “actual malice”—that is, knowingly publishing false information or doing so with reckless disregard for the truth.
The case centers on whether James Bennet, then-editorial page director of The Times, acted with that level of negligence or recklessness when editing the piece.
Bennet’s emotional testimony last week may be a turning point in the trial. He admitted to inserting the disputed language under deadline pressure, but insisted it was never intended as an attack on Palin, and that he “blew it” in what he called an editorial lapse.
“I was really upset, and I still am,” Bennet told jurors through tears, saying the error haunts him.
Damage Done? Palin’s Personal and Political Fallout
In court, Palin painted a picture of personal betrayal and public humiliation, claiming that the editorial had a profound effect on her ability to work and feel safe.
She said the editorial led to death threats, worsened public hostility, and undermined her credibility at a time when she was still engaged in public life.
Yet during cross-examination, lawyers for The Times noted that Palin continues to enjoy millions of social media followers, regularly speaks at Republican events, and is a bestselling author—evidence they argue weakens her claim of long-lasting reputational damage.
Palin responded that public visibility does not equate to personal or professional vindication, emphasizing that no correction could undo the influence of The New York Times’ initial accusation.
Trial History and Revival
This isn’t the first time this case has been in front of a jury. In February 2022, a Manhattan jury found in favor of The Times, concluding that Palin had not met the legal burden to prove actual malice.
However, during that trial, Judge Jed S. Rakoff took the rare step of announcing his intent to dismiss the case before the jury had even finished deliberating. He argued Palin had not met the legal threshold. The jury’s ruling ultimately aligned with his own.
But in 2023, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case, ruling that the judge’s early dismissal during jury deliberations created procedural errors that warranted a retrial.
This time, Judge Rakoff is being cautious, explicitly stating that the jury, not the judge, will decide the outcome.
“I think the 2nd Circuit has sent a message to this court that this is a case for the jury,” he said after rejecting motions from both legal teams for an early ruling.
A Case That Could Reshape Press Accountability
The stakes of this trial extend beyond Palin or the Times. At the heart of the case lies a broader national conversation: What should be the limits of press freedom in the digital age?
If Palin wins, it could open the door to more libel suits by public figures against major media outlets, potentially chilling investigative journalism and opinion writing. On the other hand, if the Times prevails again, it could reaffirm the strong legal protections that the media has long relied on to report on powerful individuals and contentious political issues.
Palin has positioned herself as a crusader for accountability, telling reporters that she hopes the case sends a message that “the press will be held responsible for its words.”
What’s Next?
- Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, after which the jury will deliberate.
- If the jury sides with Palin, damages will be determined, potentially setting precedent.
- A ruling in favor of The Times could reinforce the status quo of media protections under the First Amendment.
This case, years in the making, could become a defining moment for media law, especially as public trust in journalism continues to fluctuate and the political divide over “fake news” grows deeper.
Sarah Palin Testifies Sarah Palin Testifies
You must Register or Login to post a comment.