Sarah Palin lost her bid for a new trial in her libel suit against The New York Times on Tuesday. †
The written decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff said that while mistakes were made as editors rushed to meet deadlines, “one mistake is not enough to win if it is not motivated by genuine malice.”
Actual malice is the legal bar set by the Supreme Court that a public figure like Ms. Palin must prove in order to win a defamation case. That would mean that The Times either knew it was publishing false information or recklessly ignored evidence, despite doubts about the truth of what it published.
“The striking thing about the trial here was that, despite all her previous claims, Palin could ultimately not adduce even an ounce of such evidence,” Judge Rakoff wrote. Palin’s motion is hereby rejected in its entirety.
Ms Palin’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“We are pleased to see the court’s decision and remain convinced that the judge and jury have decided the case fairly and correctly,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The Times.
The libel suit of Mrs. Palin, a former Republican vice presidential nominee and governor of Alaska, addressed an editorial that mistakenly linked her campaign rhetoric to a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona. The Times corrected the editorial the morning after it was published.
Ms. Palin claimed that the editors had damaged her reputation and career. Lawyers for The Times said it was an “honest mistake” and never intended to harm Ms Palin.
The trial came at a time when those who believe journalists should be held accountable for wrongdoing are pushing for the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue. The current standard of libel was established by the 1964 New York Times Company v. Sullivan case.
The end of the trial was not without drama. While the jury deliberations were underway on Feb. 14, Judge Rakoff announced that he intended to dismiss the lawsuit — even if the jury ruled in Ms. Palin’s favor — because she failed to show that The Times acted out of genuine malice. The next day, the jury dismissed Ms. palin.
It was later revealed that several jurors learned of Judge Rakoff’s decision while they were still deliberating, thanks to push notifications on their cell phones. But in a subsequent injunction, Judge Rakoff said several jurors had told the court clerk that the notices “had not affected them in any way or played any part in their deliberations.”
The lawyers of Mrs. Palin cited the timing of Judge Rakoff’s announcement as a reason to hold a new trial. Ms. Palin can appeal, but appeals courts tend to respect jury decisions.
In April, Ms. Palin announced she would run for Congress in Alaska, in a return to national politics. She will join a crowded field of nearly 40 candidates to fill the House seat vacated by Representative Don Young, who died in March.
