In a Manhattan courtroom, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is once again squaring off against The New York Times in a defamation lawsuit that underscores the tension between free speech and media accountability. The retrial, which began Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for Southern New York, follows Palin’s successful appeal of a 2022 verdict that initially favored the Times. From a judicial viewpoint, this case highlights the dangers of a media establishment that wields its influence with little regard for truth or fairness, particularly when targeting conservative figures.
Slate reporting on retrial of Gov. Sarah Palin's suit against NYTimes libsplains NYT oped at issue: "The (NYT) Editorial Board, in characteristic fashion, sensed an opportunity to condemn both ends of the political spectrum."
— Tim Bayly † (@tbayly) April 16, 2025
"Both ends?" Heaping lies upon lies, @Slate must take… pic.twitter.com/gXwQC2V7xs
The lawsuit stems from a 2017 Times editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics,” which linked Palin to a 2011 shooting that wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ). The editorial falsely suggested that Palin’s campaign materials, which included a graphic with crosshairs over certain congressional districts, inspired the attack. In reality, the shooter, Jared Loughner, had no known connection to Palin or her campaign. The Times’ error remained on its website for 14 hours before a correction was issued—one that notably omitted Palin’s name or an apology.
Palin’s attorney, Shane Vogt, argues that the Times’ failure to acknowledge her directly in the correction demonstrates a lack of accountability. For conservatives, this omission is emblematic of a broader pattern: a liberal-leaning media that vilifies right-leaning figures without evidence, then shrugs off the consequences with minimal contrition. The Times’ defense, led by attorney Felicia Ellsworth, leans heavily on the 1964 Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which shields media outlets from defamation liability as to public figures unless “actual malice” is proven. Ellsworth contends the Times acted responsibly by correcting the error promptly, framing the case as a First Amendment issue rather than a personal attack on Palin.
Palin vs NYT https://t.co/z6dGQkPP5H @elonmusk @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/ydhOm4Gh1R
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) April 15, 2025
RELATED: Sarah Palin's Way Cleared for Second Defamation Suit Against New York Times
Yet conservatives see this defense as a convenient shield for journalistic negligence. The Sullivan standard, while protective of free speech, can embolden media outlets to publish reckless claims about public figures, particularly conservatives, knowing the legal bar for malice is nearly insurmountable. The 2017 editorial also drew a misleading parallel between the Giffords shooting and a 2017 attack on a Republican congressional baseball practice by James Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders supporter who expressed anti-Trump sentiments. By juxtaposing these events, the Times appeared to equate Palin’s lawful political rhetoric with Hodgkinson’s violent actions, a comparison many people would view as intellectually dishonest.
The retrial, overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff, comes after the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2022 verdict due to a procedural error. During the original trial, jurors had access to smartphones and received a push notification indicating Rakoff’s intent to dismiss the case in the Times’ favor, potentially influencing their deliberations. Rakoff has since banned jurors from using mobile devices, aiming to ensure a fairer process. For conservatives, this correction is a small but necessary step toward holding powerful institutions accountable, though skepticism remains about whether the judiciary will fully address the media’s role in shaping narratives against conservative leaders.
Palin’s case is about more than a single editorial—it’s a referendum on a media culture that conservatives believe unfairly targets their values and leaders. The Times’ refusal to apologize and its cursory correction fuel perceptions of arrogance and bias. While the Sullivan precedent may protect the Times legally, conservatives argue it does little to address the real-world harm of reputational damage and public mistrust. As this retrial unfolds, Palin’s fight is a rallying cry for those who demand greater responsibility from a press that too often cloaks its errors in the name of free speech.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member