Manhattan, N.Y. – Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, celebrated a significant legal victory Wednesday after a federal appeals court in Manhattan revived her defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals permits Palin to pursue her case against the newspaper, which she claims defamed her in a 2017 editorial.
The editorial in question linked Palin’s political rhetoric to the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Arizona. The article alleged that Palin’s political action committee had incited the attack by distributing a map featuring crosshairs over Giffords’ district. The shooting, which nearly claimed Giffords’ life, resulted in six deaths and left 13 others injured. Despite her critical injuries, Giffords survived but continues to face significant physical and cognitive challenges.
Palin filed the defamation suit against The New York Times shortly after the editorial’s publication, arguing that the newspaper falsely accused her of inciting violence. On June 14, 2017, the same day the editorial was published, a gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game.
The editorial faced immediate backlash, as evidence suggests that the 2011 Tucson shooting was not politically motivated. (RELATED: Don Lemon’s Trump Discovery Leaves Psaki Totally Speechless [VIDEO])
In her original lawsuit, Palin accused the newspaper staff of intentionally publishing false information to damage her reputation.
Fox News has additional information:
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the lawsuit in February 2022 in the middle of jury deliberations. He allowed the jurors to finish deliberating and give a verdict, which ultimately favored the New York Times, but lawyers pointed out that individuals on the jury received notifications from the outlet mid-deliberation announcing the judge’s dismissal.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Wednesday overturned that dismissal and verdict, finding that Rakoff made a series of errors that qualify the lawsuit for a retrial.
“We have no difficulty concluding that an average jury’s verdict would be affected if several jurors knew that the judge had already ruled for one of the parties on the very claims the jurors were charged with deciding,” 2nd Circuit Judge John Walker Jr. said regarding the dismissal.
“We think a jury’s verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge’s already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry,” Walker said, addressing claims from jurors that the dismissal and subsequent notifications did not affect their decision.
The court noted several other issues with the proceedings.
One significant concern was the restriction on Palin’s claim that editorial page editor James Bennet permitted the unsubstantiated claims against her. Palin argued that this was done to politically benefit his brother, United States Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.
Following Wednesday’s decision, Palin’s attorney, Shane Vogt, called the ruling “a significant step forward in the process of holding publishers accountable for content that misleads readers and the public in general.” (RELATED: [WATCH] Fox News Hall Of Famer Dismantles Media’s Dirty Kamala Scheme)
The 2011 Tucson shooting involving then-Rep. Giffords does not appear to have been directly politically motivated. The shooter had a history of severe mental illness, and investigators concluded that his actions were more likely driven by his deteriorating mental state than by a coherent political agenda.
The congressional baseball shooter, fired dozens of rounds from a rifle and a handgun, injuring several people, including House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who was critically wounded after being shot in the hip.
In addition to Scalise, four others were injured. Despite being outgunned, Capitol Police officers engaged the shooter and were credited with preventing what could have been a much larger tragedy.
The shooting ended when the gunman was shot and killed by Capitol Police officers. The attack was later described as politically motivated, as he had expressed strong anti-Republican and anti-Trump sentiments on social media.
READ NEXT: Supreme Court INTERVENES: Judges Stop Dem Ballot Maneuver
