Judge Jed Rakoff, who is presiding over former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, announced Monday afternoon that he will dismiss the case, concluding that the governor's team failed to establish a critical part of its case.
Rakoff's decision came as the jury was deliberating a verdict - and Rakoff stated that he will let the jury to continue discussing and reach a conclusion, after which he will dismiss the case.
The issue revolved around a June 2017 Times editorial that Palin's legal team argued accused her of encouraging murder six years prior in a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona that left then-Rep. Gabby Giffords badly injured.
The nine-member jury in federal court in Manhattan took around two days to unanimously determine that the Times was not responsible to Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee.
Palin failed to establish "actual malice," the criterion her attorneys were required to fulfill in her defamation action, the judge stated.
Her case is widely regarded as a significant test of the libel protections afforded to American media under the First Amendment's free press guarantee and a landmark 1964 United States Supreme Court decision, New York Times vs. Sullivan.
According to the New York Times vs. Sullivan case, famous individuals suing for defamation must establish that the offender knew the allegation was untrue or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
The Times maintained throughout that it made an honest error involving Palin - and promptly corrected it. Palin contended that the newspaper purposefully maligned her.
"My responsibility is to enforce the law," Rakoff stated. "The law here establishes a very high standard for 'actual malice,' and the court concludes that level has not been reached in this case."
Rakoff initially rejected Palin's lawsuit, but an appeals court ordered him to reconsider. The four-and-a-half-year procedure culminated in Friday's conclusion of closing arguments.
Rakoff sided with The Times following hours of debate over the publication's contention that the Palin campaign had failed to offer a "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" for the case.
"We arrived to the same conclusion, but on different grounds," Rakoff explained the jurors. "You established the facts. I decided the law."
Danielle Rhoades Ha, a representative for the New York Times, said the newspaper applauded the finding, which, like Rakoff's, acknowledged the significance of not punishing news organizations for unintentional errors that are immediately addressed.
Palin is expected to appeal the decision.
