Sarah Palin’s Defamation Battle: How She Challenged Court Rulings for 9 Years Before Finally Closing the Case

After nearly a decade of legal battles, former Republican Governor of Alaska and erstwhile vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, has concluded her defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. The saga, which had been ongoing for almost nine years, ended quietly as Palin opted not to continue her appeal following her second trial defeat.

Palin initially experienced a favorable outcome at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court criticized Senior U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff for multiple “major issues” during the initial 2022 trial. Controversially, Judge Rakoff independently ruled, amid jury deliberations, that no reasonable juror could determine the Times and its former opinion editor, James Bennet, acted with actual malice. The 2017 editorial in question linked a “cross hairs” map, disseminated by Palin’s political action committee, SarahPAC, to the 2011 mass shooting in Arizona. This tragic event, carried out by Jared Lee Loughner, resulted in the deaths of six people and severely injured Representative Gabby Giffords, a Democrat and the spouse of Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona.

Although the Times corrected the editorial within 14 hours of its publication, Palin embarked on a lengthy legal journey to challenge established defamation precedents. However, she faced significant setbacks, particularly with Judge Rakoff and the jury’s decisions. Despite the jury independently concluding that Palin’s case was unsubstantiated, it was later uncovered that several jurors had learned of Rakoff’s dismissal through push notifications during deliberations. This revelation prompted concerns about the verdict’s “reliability,” leading to the order for a new trial. Nonetheless, Judge Rakoff was not disqualified from overseeing further proceedings, as the 2nd Circuit expressed confidence in his ability to maintain impartiality.

At that juncture, Palin’s legal team viewed the decision as a “significant step” towards potentially holding the Times accountable through a retrial. They aimed to focus on the question of actual malice — whether the Times had made its error with “knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truthfulness” — leaving this determination entirely to the jury.

At the time, Palin’s legal team saw it as a “significant step” toward holding the Times accountable through a retrial in which the question of actual malice — whether the Times’ error about the public figure was made with “knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false” — was left for solely the jury to decide.

In April 2025, a different jury found in favor of the Times with a not liable verdict, leading Rakoff to dismiss the case and then Palin’s return to the 2nd Circuit — this time without the same issues about the judge on appeal.

With a brief due on March 30 and without offering a reason, Palin has now agreed in a stipulation to withdraw the appeal “without costs or attorneys’ fees” but with the possibility of reinstating the case within a calendar month.

“The parties in the above-referenced case have filed a stipulation withdrawing this appeal pursuant to Local Rule 42.1. The stipulation is hereby ‘So Ordered,’” the court said Monday in an order from the clerk.

Law&Crime reached out to Palin attorney Shane Vogt for comment on why the case is ending now and in this way.