Jury sides with New York Times in Sarah Palin's defamation case, says it did not commit libel

The verdict came after two hours of jury deliberation, and marked the second time that a jury has sided with the outlet. A jury first ruled against Palin in 2022. But an appeals court later reinstated the case.

Published: April 22, 2025 5:58pm

Updated: April 22, 2025 6:54pm

A federal jury on Tuesday found that the New York Times did not commit libel against former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in an op-ed that it published in 2017, which she claimed was defamatory. The jury found that The Times did not publish the falsity with "actual malice," the legal standard for liability in libel cases against public officials and figures.

Palin and the outlet returned to court last week for a second trial in the case, which stems from an op-ed that inaccurately linked her to a mass shooting six years earlier in which then-Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was critically wounded.

The piece attempted to connect a map Palin’s political action committee released, which showcased crosshairs over Democratic congressional electoral districts, to the 2011 assassination attempt, even though there was no evidence that the gunman ever saw the map. In the first trial, Palin's legal team argued that the Times published an article on the same day of Giffords' shooting making clear that there was no connection between the PAC and the shooting. The legal theory was that before publishing the opinion piece six years later, The Times failed to check their own records. The Times claimed it was simply a mistake.

The former Times editor apologizes

The New York Times corrected the opinion piece the day after it ran, and admitted that it was inaccurate. James Bennet, the former editor responsible for the inaccuracy in the piece, has also apologized to Palin for the piece.

The verdict came after two hours of jury deliberation, and marked the second time that a jury had sided with the outlet. A jury first ruled against Palin in 2022. But an appeals court later reinstated the case after trial Judge Jed Rakoff erred in certain evidentiary rulings.

The former Republican vice presidential nominee has not commented on whether she intends to appeal the latest verdict, but told reporters after the jury announced its decision that she was going to “go home to a beautiful family” and “get on with life.”

“The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes," Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokeswoman for the New York Times, said in a statement.

Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage. 

Unlock unlimited access

  • No Ads Within Stories
  • No Autoplay Videos
  • VIP access to exclusive Just the News newsmaker events hosted by John Solomon and his team.
  • Support the investigative reporting and honest news presentation you've come to enjoy from Just the News.
  • Just the News Spotlight

    Support Just the News