Court Rules Against Sarah Palin

In a years-long libel case against the New York Times, a jury recently ruled against Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and Republican vice presidential nominee. Palin's suit stemmed from an editorial published in the Times that suggested she possibly incited a deadly shooting in Arizona.

This case is important because it represents one of the most recent attempts to overturn the "actual malice" standard in defamation cases, which has been established precedent since the 1960s stemming from the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan. In defamation law, there are generally two standards: one for public officials/public figures and the other for average everyday citizens like you and me. For public officials and public figures, an individual needs to prove that a statement written or stated was done with "actual malice." Actual malice refers to publishing a false statement of fact with knowledge of its falsity or recklessly disregarding its truth and publishing it anyway.

This is the second time this case has been to trial. In 2022, the case first went to trial, and the judge and jury ruled in favor of the Times. Last year, a federal appeals court invalidated that ruling, which set the stage for a retrial. It is yet to be determined if Palin will appeal the decision.