Sarah Palin's Defamation Suit Against NYT Is Revived by 2nd Circuit
The court reversed the dismissal of a suit over a now-corrected editorial that said her political action committee's was partly to blame in a 2011 mass shooting that left former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords seriously injured.
August 06, 2019 at 10:28 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A Manhattan-based appeals court on Tuesday revived Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against The New York Times over a since-corrected editorial that said her political action committee was partly to blame in a 2011 mass shooting that left former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Arizona, seriously injured.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a 2017 decision by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York to dismiss Palin’s suit over a Times editorial linking rhetoric used by her PAC—which included the use of crosshairs to target congressional districts to flip from Democratic to Republican—to the act of gun violence. Rakoff had reasoned that Palin could make no showing of actual malice on the part of the Times.
Now, a Second Circuit panel has ruled that Palin should have a chance to prove the actual malice element. They revived the case on procedural grounds, holding that the trial court’s ruling “runs headlong” into federal rules because it incorrectly looked to evidence outside the complaint, specifically when the court conducted a hearing with the editorial’s author.
“It is clear to us that the district court viewed the hearing as a way to more expeditiously decide whether Palin had a viable way to establish actual malice,” Senior Judge John M. Walker wrote in a 21-page opinion.
“But, despite the flexibility that is accorded district courts to streamline proceedings and manage their calendars, district courts are not free to bypass rules of procedure that are carefully calibrated to ensure fair process to both sides,” he said.
Walker was joined in his decision by Judge Denny Chin and, sitting by designation, Senior Judge John Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Walker and Keenan were appointed to the judiciary by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan respectively, while Chin is an appointee of President Barack Obama.
The court took no position on the merits of Palin’s claim but said the case should move ahead to full discovery.
Palin’s lawyers, Elizabeth Locke and Kenneth Turkel, said the case “is—and always has been—about media accountability.”
“We are pleased with the court’s decision, and we look forward to starting discovery and ultimately proceeding to trial,” they said.
The Times said it would mount a “vigorous” defense of the action.
“We are disappointed in the decision and intend to continue to defend the action vigorously,” said the Times’ spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Hall in response to a call to the Times’ attorneys seeking comment.
Palin is represented by Locke of Clare Locke in Washington, D.C., and Joseph Oliveri from the firm’s office in Alexandria, Virginia. Kenneth G. Turkel, Shane B. Vogt and Bajo Cuva of Cohen Turkel and Preston Ricardo of Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe acted as co-counsel on the case.
The Times is represented by Lee Levine of Ballard Spahr in Washington, D.C., David A. Schultz of the firm’s New York office and David E. McCraw, the top newsroom lawyer for the Times.
Palin filed her suit in June 2017, just days after the Times ran its editorial in the wake of a shooting at a Congressional baseball practice in Virginia. In her complaint, Palin said attacks against her “inflame passions and thereby drive viewership and web clicks to media companies.”
Palin claimed the editorial in question, titled “America’s Lethal Politics,” linked her to a 2011 shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona. Six people were killed, and Giffords was shot in the head. She survived the shooting with serious injuries.
Prior to the shooting in Tucson, Palin’s political action committee, SarahPAC, distributed a flier showing the geographic location of Giffords’ district and others, under stylized crosshairs marking them as targets to be flipped from Democratic to Republican.
In the first published version of the editorial, the Times erroneously stated the PAC’s flier featured crosshairs over the faces of Democratic lawmakers and that the “link to political incitement was clear” with regard to the shooting in Tucson.
The Times’ own reporting, and an ABC News story hyperlinked to the editorial, stated there was no link between the political literature and Loughner’s actions. The Times twice corrected the piece.
Considering the Times’ motion to dismiss the suit, Rakoff ordered an evidentiary hearing, featuring the testimony of the editorial’s author, James Bennet. At the hearing, Bennet recounted the research and publication process behind the editorial and answered questions about his knowledge of the Loughner shooting six years earlier, according to the Second Circuit’s ruling.
Rakoff, relying on evidence produced at the hearing, dismissed the complaint for failing to show actual malice, saying the editorial contained a “few factual inaccuracies” that were “very rapidly corrected.”
“Negligence this may be,” Rakoff said. “But defamation of a public figure it is plainly not.”
In its decision Tuesday, the Second Circuit panel acknowledged the First Amendment concerns in the case but noted that “at this stage, our concern is with how district courts evaluate pleadings.”
The case is captioned Palin v. The New York Times.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: Lawyers for Big Tech Give Harris Benefit of Doubt, Despite Pummeling They Took Under Biden
Dapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Saying 'No Answer Is Required' Is Insufficient Under Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, Court Says in Novel Ruling
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250