Judge Says He'll Dismiss Palin vs NYTimes Lawsuit

A federal judge said he would reject Sarah Palin’s allegations that she was defamed by the New York Times, ruling that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate’s claims presented at trial were insufficient to prove her case, reports The Wall Street Journal.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff announced his decision Monday while jurors were still deliberating. He said he would dismiss Ms. Palin’s complaint after they return a verdict.

Judge Rakoff’s decision follows a rare libel trial that probed the inner workings of a national news outlet. Ms. Palin and leading figures from the Times testified in the trial, which was held last week.

The judge said allowing the jury to finish its work would benefit an appeals court when it reviews the case—and potentially help avoid the need for a retrial if his decision is overturned.

Ms. Palin sued the Times in 2017, two weeks after it published an editorial about gun violence and political rhetoric following a shooting at a congressional baseball practice. The piece used the phrase “political incitement” to incorrectly suggest that an ad circulated by Ms. Palin’s political-action committee inspired a shooter who in 2011 killed six people and wounded then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat.

Within hours, the Times corrected the editorial, deleting the incitement claim, and tweeted out an apology to its readers.

Monday’s ruling came in response to a motion filed by the Times, which argued it was entitled to win as a matter of law, on the grounds that no reasonable juror could conclude it defamed Ms. Palin, the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee and a former Alaska governor.

Judge Rakoff ruled Ms. Palin had failed to establish that the newspaper acted with actual malice, such as reckless disregard for the truth, an essential element that public figures like Ms. Palin must prove to prevail.

Under landmark legal rules established by the Supreme Court nearly 60 years ago, Ms. Palin had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Times and its then-opinion editor, James Bennet, acted with actual malice, meaning they either knowingly published a false statement or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.