Updated April 22, 2025 at 18:14 PM ET
NEW YORK — The New York Times did not libel former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial that contained an error she claimed had damaged her reputation, a jury concluded Tuesday.
The jury deliberated a little over two hours before reaching its verdict. A judge and a different jury had reached the same conclusion about Palin's defamation claims in 2022, but her lawsuit was revived by an appeals court.
Palin was subdued as she left the courthouse and made her way to a waiting car, telling reporters: "I get to go home to a beautiful family of five kids and grandkids and a beautiful property and get on with life. And that's nice."
Later, she posted on the social platform X that she planned to "keep asking the press to quit making things up."
Danielle Rhoades Ha, a Times spokesperson, said in a statement that the verdict "reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes."
Palin, who earned a journalism degree in college, sued the Times for unspecified damages in 2017, about a decade after she burst onto the national stage as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.
Her lawsuit stemmed from an editorial about gun control published after U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, was wounded in 2017 when a man with a history of anti-GOP activity opened fire on a Congressional baseball team practice in Washington.
In the editorial, the Times wrote that before the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona that severely wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others, Palin's political action committee had contributed to an atmosphere of violence by circulating a map of electoral districts that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.
The Times corrected the article less than 14 hours after it was published, saying it had "incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting" and that it had "incorrectly described" the map.
During the trial, former Times editorial page editor James Bennet tearfully apologized to Palin, saying he was tormented by the error and worked urgently to correct it after readers complained to the newspaper.
Palin testified Monday that death threats against her increased and her spirits fell after the editorial was published.
In his closing argument Tuesday, Palin's attorney, Kenneth Turkel, had urged the jury to find the Times liable for defamation on the grounds that Bennet either knew what he was publishing was wrong or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
He asked the jury to award Palin compensatory damages for the harm done to her reputation and private mental anguish, adding that they should "find a number and let her get some closure to this thing."
"To this day, there been no accountability," he said. "That's why we're here."
He told jurors not to be deceived by Palin's "bouncy" persona on the witness stand.
"She doesn't cry a lot," Turkel said. "It may have been to them an honest mistake. For her, it was a life changer."
Felicia Ellsworth, an attorney for the Times, told jurors in her closing that there was not "one shred of evidence showing anything other than an honest mistake."
Ellsworth said Bennet and the Times "corrected the record loudly, clearly and quickly" once the error was discovered.
The lawyer pointed out that several Times editors testified consistently about the effort to correct the error and the importance they placed on accuracy while Palin's claims were "supported by nothing other than her say so."
"To Gov. Palin, this is just another opportunity to take on fake news. To James Bennet, the truth matters," Ellsworth said.
In February 2022, Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected Palin's claims in a ruling issued while a jury deliberated. The judge then let jurors deliver their verdict, which also went against Palin.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan restored the case last year.
The appeals court said Rakoff's dismissal ruling improperly intruded on the jury's work. It also cited flaws in the trial, saying there was erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and a mistaken response to a question from the jury.
Turkel said as he left the courthouse that the legal team will evaluate whether to appeal again.
Copyright 2025 NPR
