In a courtroom saga that’s stretched nearly a decade, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has once again lost her defamation case against The New York Times. A Manhattan jury ruled that the newspaper did not defame the one-time Republican vice-presidential candidate in a controversial 2017 editorial — marking the second time a jury has sided with the Times in this high-profile media battle.
The ruling comes after Palin was granted a retrial due to concerns about jury bias in the original 2022 case, which also ended in defeat for her. This time, though, the courtroom was more closely watched, as the verdict could have had far-reaching implications for press freedoms and the legal thresholds public figures must meet in defamation cases.
The Controversial Editorial
The editorial at the heart of Palin’s lawsuit, titled America’s Lethal Politics, was written by former Times opinion editor James Bennet. It was published in response to a 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice, and in it, Bennet referenced a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona that wounded then-Representative Gabby Giffords and left six others dead.
The piece included a line suggesting a “clear” link between heated political rhetoric — including a map distributed by a Palin-affiliated PAC that placed stylized crosshairs over certain congressional districts — and the violent act. Though the editorial was quickly corrected (14 hours later), Palin claimed the damage to her reputation had already been done.
Palin’s Fight for Accountability
Palin sued in 2017, arguing that the Times had acted with “actual malice” — a necessary standard for defamation involving public figures, which requires proof that the publication either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Her legal team claimed that the mistake wasn’t innocent. In closing arguments, her lawyer Ken Turkel said the editorial was “a life-changer” for Palin, and that the Times’ quick correction didn’t erase the harm done to her public image.
But the jury didn’t agree.
A Legal Line Not Crossed
The Times maintained throughout the trial that the error in the editorial was just that — a mistake, not a malicious or intentional smear campaign. “There has not been one shred of evidence showing anything other than an honest mistake,” said attorney Felicia Ellsworth, who represented the newspaper.
That argument ultimately prevailed, with the jury determining there was no defamation. The Times responded with a statement celebrating the verdict as a win for journalistic integrity, saying the outcome “reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.”
What It Means for Media — and Public Figures
This ruling, though centered on Palin, reverberates far beyond one politician’s personal reputation. It reinforces the legal precedent that public figures must meet a high bar to win defamation cases — a standard that has protected journalists and publishers for decades under the First Amendment.
Legal analysts suggest this latest decision underscores the difficulty of proving malice without clear evidence of intent or disregard for truth. For Palin and her supporters, it’s a frustrating reminder of just how uphill the battle is for public figures who feel wronged by the press.
The Political and Personal Fallout
Palin, now 61, hasn’t seen a major political win in years. She lost two congressional bids in Alaska in 2022 and hasn’t held public office since stepping down as governor in 2009. Once a rising star in conservative politics, her influence has faded — though she remains a polarizing figure and frequent media lightning rod.
The verdict marks the likely end of her legal campaign against The New York Times. And while the case may be closed, the broader questions it raises — about media responsibility, free speech, and public trust — remain wide open.