Sarah Palin Loses Bid to Disqualify Judge from NY Times Defamation Trial
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Tuesday lost her bid to have the judge who oversaw her unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against the New York Times disqualify himself and order a new trial.
The jury ultimately sided with the Times.
Palin Wants New Trial With Different Judge in New York Times Defamation Lawsuit
In a written decision on Tuesday, Rakoff called Palin’s motion for him to recuse himself “frivolous.” He said she had not identified any legal errors
“The meritless accusations of impropriety in Palin’s motion cannot substitute for what her trial presentation lacked: proof of actual malice,” Rakoff wrote.
A 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision requires public figures alleging defamation to show that news media acted with actual malice, meaning they knowingly published false information or had reckless disregard for the truth. The decision provides substantial protection for journalists.
A lawyer for Palin declined to comment. Palin, who is now running to represent Alaska in the U.S. House of Representatives, is appealing the verdict.
Palin, 58, sued the Times and its editorial page editor at the time, James Bennet, over a June 14, 2017, Times editorial that addressed gun control and lamented the rise of inflammatory political rhetoric.
It followed a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Virginia, where Republican U.S. Representative Steve Scalise was among the wounded.
The editorial incorrectly linked Palin’s rhetoric to a 2011 Arizona mass shooting where Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded. The piece was corrected the next morning.
- Hard Market ‘Supercycle’ Likely to Be Prolonged: Lloyd’s CEO Neal
- Former NFL Player’s $43.5 Million Score in Medical Malpractice Case Upheld
- Drought Shrivels the Mississippi River and Threatens to Disrupt US Food Exports
- Hershey Attacks Lawsuits Targeting Product Packaging, Seeks to End Reese’s Case