Judge says Sarah Palin did not produce ‘even a speck’ of evidence against New York Times in libel case
A jury also ruled against Ms Palin’s lawsuit
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sarah Palin's bid to sue to The New York Times for libel has once again failed after a judge rejected her request for a new case, saying she failed to produce "even a speck" of evidence to prove actual malice.
According to the Associated Press, Ms Palin, a former Republican vice presidential candidate and former governor of Alaska, was trying to bring a new libel lawsuit against the Times after her first attempt to sue the paper failed.
When a public figure sues someone for defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in "actual malice" — an intentional desire to damage the reputation of the plaintiff using information the defendant knows is false — rather than simple negligence.
This requirement makes it difficult for individuals with wealth and power to silence the media — or the average citizen — by filing a lawsuit every time they receive criticism.
Understanding that high bar, Ms Palin's attorneys attempted to argue that the judge in the first trial made procedural errors that should invalidate the first trial's results.
The judge disagreed, saying "none of these [complaints] was erroneous" and said they did not provide evidence enough to support granting Ms Palin a new trial.
Ms Palin sued the Times over a 2017 editorial that incorrectly linked a map from her campaign to mass shooting. She claimed the association harmed her reputation and her career.
The Times admitted that the editorial was incorrect, but noted that it was corrected shortly after the paper learned of the error and representatives from the publication called it an "honest mistake" that was published as a matter of fact, not an attack.
Because Ms Palin could not prove that the Times had intended to hurt her reputation nor could she prove the Times was aware the information was incorrect at the time of publishing, she lost her case.
In February, even before jury deliberations began on Ms Palin's case, US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff announced his intent to toss out the case, as he felt the complaint did not provide any evidence that the Times acted out of malice.
The jurors who heard the case ultimately agreed and ruled against Ms Palin's lawsuit the next day.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments