Sarah Palin has lost her defamation case against The New York Times for a second time, following a jury's verdict on April 22, 2025, that found the newspaper was not liable for defaming the former Alaska governor. This outcome marks another setback for Palin, who has been embroiled in a legal battle over a 2017 editorial that she claims wrongfully linked her to a mass shooting in Arizona.
The latest trial took place in Manhattan federal court and lasted four days, with the jury deliberating for just over two hours before reaching a unanimous decision. This verdict comes almost eight years after Palin first filed her complaint against the newspaper, which she alleges damaged her reputation.
Palin's lawsuit originated from an editorial titled "America's Lethal Politics," published in the aftermath of a shooting that severely injured former U.S. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and killed six others in Arizona in 2011. The editorial criticized the political climate in the United States, suggesting that incendiary rhetoric contributed to an atmosphere of violence. It specifically cited a map created by Palin's political action committee that featured crosshairs over Democratic-leaning congressional districts, including Giffords' district.
In the course of editing the editorial, then-editorial director James Bennet added a sentence stating that "the link to political incitement was clear." Palin contended that this sentence falsely implied a causal connection between her actions and the shooting. The Times corrected the editorial within 14 hours of its publication, acknowledging that it had "incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting" and that it had "incorrectly described" the map.
After losing her initial case in February 2022, which was decided by a unanimous jury, Palin was granted a retrial by a federal appeals court. The court found that "several major issues" from the initial proceedings threatened to "impugn the reliability" of the jury's verdict. Notably, District Judge Jed Rakoff had indicated he was prepared to dismiss Palin's complaint, asserting that no reasonable jury would find the Times acted with actual malice.
During the most recent trial, Palin testified that the editorial's publication left her feeling "defenseless" and that it significantly impacted her life. She stated, "It just kicked the oomph right out of you." Her attorney, Kenneth Turkel, argued that the Times should be held accountable for what he described as an error that had life-altering consequences for Palin. He urged the jury to award her compensatory damages for the harm done to her reputation and mental anguish.
In response, Felicia Ellsworth, an attorney for the Times, emphasized that the jury could not find the newspaper liable without proving that the error was published with actual malice. She stated, "There’s not been one shred of evidence showing anything other than an honest mistake." Ellsworth also pointed out that the Times acted promptly to correct the editorial and that the newspaper's commitment to accuracy was demonstrated by the testimonies of several editors.
The verdict is significant not only for Palin but also for the broader media landscape, as it reaffirms the legal protections afforded to publishers when reporting on public figures. The Times spokesperson stated, "The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes." This ruling comes at a time when media organizations face increasing legal challenges and scrutiny, particularly from political figures who have sought to undermine the protections established by the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Despite the loss, Palin remains vocal about her grievances with the media. After the verdict, she expressed her intention to continue advocating for integrity in journalism, stating, "I’ll keep asking the press to quit making things up." This sentiment underscores the ongoing tension between public figures and the media, especially in an era marked by heightened distrust of news outlets.
Palin's legal journey has not only been a personal battle but also a reflection of the changing dynamics in American politics and media. As a prominent figure in the Republican Party, her case has drawn attention from First Amendment advocates and legal experts who are concerned about the implications of defamation lawsuits on journalistic practices.
In the wake of this verdict, the Times has reiterated its commitment to responsible journalism and the importance of correcting errors swiftly. The editorial that sparked Palin's lawsuit was a reminder of the delicate balance between free speech and the responsibility to report accurately, particularly when public figures are involved.
Palin's pursuit of justice through the courts highlights the ongoing struggle for accountability in media reporting, especially when it comes to the portrayal of political figures. As she reflects on her experience, she continues to advocate for a press that adheres to high standards of accuracy and integrity.
As the media landscape evolves, cases like Palin's will likely continue to shape the conversation around defamation law and the protections afforded to journalists. The implications of this verdict extend beyond Palin herself, serving as a crucial precedent for future defamation cases involving public figures.
