• A jury in Manhattan concluded that the New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin.
• The decision stems from a 2017 editorial which linked Palin to a mass shooting in Arizona.
• This marks Palin's second loss in her legal battle against the Times over press freedom issues.

A Manhattan jury determined on Tuesday that The New York Times did not libel former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for an error in a 2017 editorial that she claims damaged her reputation. The jury deliberated for a little over two hours before reaching its verdict following closing arguments from both Palin's lawyers and those representing the newspaper, according to The New York Times.

The editorial in question, published in June 2017, erroneously suggested that Palin's political action committee had contributed to an atmosphere of violence preceding the 2011 mass shooting that injured then-Representative Gabby Giffords and killed six others. Following intense scrutiny, the Times corrected the editorial less than 14 hours after publication, admitting to inaccuracies, according to HuffPost and Reuters.

During her testimony, Palin stated that she felt “defenseless” and that death threats against her increased after the Times published the editorial. She argued it was a significant blow to her reputation, emphasizing that the correction did not adequately address the harm done, as it did not mention her by name, as reported by South China Morning Post and The Hill.

Palin's attorney, Kenneth Turkel, contended that the editorial was not just an “honest mistake,” claiming it had profound repercussions on her life. However, lawyers for the Times refuted the charges, asserting that to find the newspaper liable, proof of “actual malice” was needed, which they argued had not been demonstrated as detailed by NPR and CBS News.

This trial follows Palin's earlier legal challenges against the Times, including a 2022 jury verdict that ruled in favor of the newspaper. The recent appeals court decision prompted a retrial, stating past errors during the initial court proceedings merited further examination, according to Los Angeles Times and BBC.