ruling

Most Read
Judge Savagely Shoots Down Sarah Palin's Request For New Trial Against NYT In Blunt Ruling
John Lamparski/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's request for a new trial in her libel case against The New York Times.

Rakoff claimed the Republican politician didn't provide "even a speck" of evidence that would indicate any malice towards her from the newspaper.

In 2017, the New York Times ran an editorial in which they suggested an image produced by Palin's political action committee incited the 2011 shooting of Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords.

Palin's attorneys asked Rakoff to grant a new trial or disqualify himself as biased against her.

They claimed several of his evidentiary rulings were inaccurate, including from how jurors were questioned during jury selection to how they were coached when asking questions during deliberations.

On Tuesday, Rakoff rejected those post-trial claims.

He asserted in his written decision:

“In actuality, none of these was erroneous, let alone a basis for granting Palin a new trial."


He added:

“And the striking thing about the trial here was that Palin, for all her earlier assertions, could not, in the end, introduce even a speck of such evidence."






Charlie Stadtlander—a spokesperson for the Times—said in a statement:

"We are pleased to see the court's decision, and remain confident that the judge and jury decided the case fairly and correctly."



Palin—who in 2008 ran as a Republican Vice Presidential candidate alongside the late Arizona Senator John McCain—claimed the editorial's "political incitement" of her damaged her career.

The Times acknowledged their editorial was inaccurate and made corrections to the errors.

The publication stated it was an "honest mistake" and added they never meant to cause harm to Palin's reputation.

In February, Rakoff announced he planned to dismiss Palin's lawsuit before the jury completed deliberations.

His intention was based on Palin's failure to provide evidence the Times had acted maliciously–which is required in libel suits involving public figures.

The following day, the jurors themselves rejected Palin's lawsuit.