The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reinstated Sarah Palin’s libel lawsuit against The New York Times (NYT), overturning a previous dismissal by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff.
In 2022, Judge Rakoff dismissed Palin’s case during jury deliberations, ruling that Palin had failed to demonstrate “actual malice” as required under New York law.
To succeed in a libel claim, a plaintiff must provide “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant made false statements with the intent to cause harm.
Rakoff’s decision was based on Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a judge to dismiss a case if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find in favor of the party on a given issue.
Despite this, Rakoff allowed the jury to complete its deliberations, which concluded with a verdict favoring the NYT.
Palin contested the dismissal, asserting that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find actual malice. She also claimed that the court improperly excluded critical evidence, which could have influenced the jury’s decision.
The Appeals Court agreed with Palin, finding that Judge Rakoff’s application of Rule 50 was improper. The court highlighted that there was a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” for the jury to reach a different verdict.
Furthermore, the decision criticized Rakoff for bypassing the jury’s role and failing to include pertinent evidence.
According to the Appeals Court:
“The jury is sacrosanct in our legal system, and we have a duty to protect its constitutional role, both by ensuring that the jury’s role is not usurped by judges and by making certain that juries are provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law.”
The court also concurred with Palin’s argument that Judge Rakoff improperly excluded relevant evidence. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence is deemed relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable.
The Appeals Court noted that the excluded evidence was significant as it pertained to proving actual malice, which often relies on inferential or circumstantial evidence due to the defendant’s subjective mental state.
The case has been remanded to the district court for a new trial, highlighting the ongoing scrutiny of First Amendment libel protections for media organizations.
