Palin's Defamation Case Against New York Times Wins Appeal
Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, has won her appeal in a defamation case against the New York Times. The case has been a topic of discussion for years due to its unusual circumstances and rulings. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who presided over the case, had previously been reversed and issued questionable rulings before dismissing Palin's case. He has now been reversed once again, and Palin will have another chance to sue the newspaper.
Concerns Over Judge Rakoff's Rulings
Judge Rakoff's handling of this case has raised concerns, considering his record of flawed rulings and the fact that he will be allowed to preside over any new trial. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' three-judge panel overturned a 2022 jury verdict in favor of the New York Times due to Judge Rakoff's errors.
The Defamation Case
The case revolves around an editorial that insinuated Palin incited or inspired Jared Loughner's 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). This claim was both outrageous and demonstrably false. The editorial was published following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other GOP members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old liberal activist and supporter of Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The Times appeared to be attempting to shift the narrative back to right-wing violence.
Reality vs. Editorial Claims
In reality, the map distributed by SarahPAC, Palin's political action committee, targeted various districts viewed as potential flip districts by Republicans. This map was published long before the shooting. Despite this, Judge Rakoff dismissed the case, citing the Supreme Court's "very high standard for actual malice" for public figures seeking recovery for defamation.
Times v. Sullivan Standard
The Times helped establish this standard as the victim of a bias campaign. However, many argue that the Palin controversy exposed the "advocacy journalism" now prevalent in the media. The Times, they argue, often uses this protection to shield false attacks on political opponents, making it a threat to free speech.
History of Times v. Sullivan
Decades ago, The Times was targeted by segregationists who wanted to deter media from publishing accounts of segregationists opposing the civil rights movement. This effort was creating such a threat that media had to choose between self-censorship or insolvency. In his concurrence in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice Hugo Black stated that "state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials."
Reversal of Judge Rakoff's Decision
After Judge Rakoff's decision to dismiss the case was reversed, he proceeded to dismiss the case again after the jury was sent to reach a verdict. He declared that Palin had failed to offer evidence that would satisfy the minimum of the actual malice standard. However, the Second Circuit agreed that Palin did cite sufficient evidence on actual malice and reversed Rakoff's decision.
Additional Reversible Errors
Judge Rakoff's handling of the case added additional reversible errors. He did not sequester the jury, and his dismissal was widely reported. The jury learned of the decision and ruled against Palin. The appellate panel ruled that a verdict reached with knowledge of the judge's already-announced disposition of the case is rarely untainted, regardless of what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry.
Palin's Disadvantage
Palin was already at a disadvantage as a leading Republican being tried before a New York jury. Rakoff added to that burden with a series of flawed decisions. Even after being previously reversed, Rakoff seemed intent on dismissing the case.
Revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan
The case has highlighted concerns about the extension of New York Times v. Sullivan from public officials to public figures. Two justices have indicated that they might be open to revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Clarence Thomas has long criticized the standard as unsupported in either the text or the history of the Constitution. Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch objected last year to the denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson.
Public Figures and Defamation
The actual malice standard rests convincingly on a democratic rationale that a free people and a free press must have breathing space to criticize the government and their leaders. However, applying the standard to anyone considered a public figure is less clear. Why should private success alone expose someone like the Kardashians to a higher burden of proof for defamation?
Future of the Doctrine
These are difficult questions that warrant serious discussion not only on the court but also in society. The Palin case and other cases could present a new opportunity for the court to review the doctrine. Palin now must go back before Judge Rakoff and a New York jury, a combination that has proven challenging in the past. If her case ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, it may allow for a reconsideration of the extension of New York Times v. Sullivan to public figures.
Bottom Line
This case presents an opportunity to reevaluate the standards for defamation, particularly in regards to public figures. It raises questions about the balance between protecting free speech and preventing false attacks. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you believe the standards for defamation should be revisited? Share this article with your friends and join the discussion. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.
