Palin vs. ‘New York Times’: Judge to dismiss libel claim

NEW YORK — A judge on Monday indicated he will dismiss Sarah Palin’s libel case against the New

York Times, saying she had not met the legal standard showing the newspaper acted with “actual malice” in publishing a 2017 editorial that included an inaccurate claim about her.

Judge Jed Rakoff told the lawyers involved in the case he will formally issue his ruling after a jury that has been deliberating since Friday returns its decision.

But since the case is likely to be appealed — a path that could result in rulings upending longstanding legal protections for journalists who write about public figures — Rakoff said he wanted future courts to have both his decision and the jury’s to consider.

Rakoff did not spare the Times criticism for its error, a sentence within a larger essay that inaccurately suggested a link between rhetoric from her political action committee and a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson.

“This is an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times,” he said, adding he was “not at all happy to make this decision” in its favor.

However, he told the parties gathered in his federal courtroom, “the law sets a very high standard for actual malice, and in this case the court finds that that standard has not been met.”

While Palin’s attorneys argued the paper’s then-editorial page editor James Bennet had acted recklessly in publishing assertions he should have known were false, a Times lawyer described a frantic, deadline editing session that resulted in “a mess-up ... a goof” he regretted immediately and corrected as quickly as possible.

The case — the first libel lawsuit against the Times to go to trial against in the U.S. in nearly two decades — has been closely watched for its First Amendment implications.

Two conservative Supreme Court justices have signaled an openness to reassess a landmark 1964 ruling that has set a high bar for prominent people pursuing libel claims.

Rakoff said he was letting the jury continue its deliberations so that if it returns a decision in Palin’s favor, the appeals court wouldn’t necessarily have to send it back for a new trial but rather reinstate the jury’s verdict.