In a recent and pivotal decision, a federal appeals court has revived Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, a case that has significant implications not only for defamation law but also for the broader issue of judicial activism. At the heart of this case lies a fundamental question: How far should a judge go in influencing the outcome of a jury’s deliberations? The decision to grant Palin a new trial underscores a growing pushback against the creeping influence of judicial activism in our legal system—a pushback that is both necessary and timely.
The case centers around a 2017 editorial published by The New York Times, which attempted to draw a connection between Palin’s political action committee and a tragic mass shooting in 2011 that left six people dead and severely wounded Representative Gabby Giffords. The editorial, written in the immediate aftermath of a different shooting at a congressional softball game, suggested that Palin’s PAC had a role in inciting violence. This claim was later proven to be unfounded, and the Times issued a correction. Nevertheless, Palin pursued legal action, arguing that the editorial had defamed her by falsely linking her to the violence.
During the original trial in 2022, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff made a controversial decision. While the jury was still deliberating, Rakoff announced that he planned to dismiss the case, stating that Palin had failed to meet the high legal standard required to prove “actual malice”—a crucial element in defamation cases involving public figures. This announcement, made before the jury had reached a verdict, cast a long shadow over the proceedings. The jury ultimately found in favor of The New York Times, but the damage had been done.
Circuit Court Judge John L. Walker, writing for a three-judge panel, highlighted the deep concerns raised by Rakoff’s actions. “The jury is sacrosanct in our legal system,” Walker wrote, emphasizing the duty of the courts to protect the jury’s constitutional role from being undermined by judicial overreach. Walker’s opinion makes it clear that Rakoff’s premature announcement may have tainted the jury’s deliberations, whether intentionally or not. The appeals court concluded that a new trial was warranted, in part because some jurors had received push notifications on their smartphones about Rakoff’s decision while they were still deliberating.
Recommended
This case is emblematic of a broader issue in our legal system: the balance of power between judges and juries. Juries are intended to serve as impartial arbiters of fact, guided by the evidence presented in court. Judges, on the other hand, are tasked with ensuring that the trial proceeds according to the law. However, when a judge takes steps that could be perceived as influencing the jury’s verdict—such as announcing a decision to dismiss a case before the jury has finished its work—it raises serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process. Even worse, when a judge takes from the jury its duty to decide the facts of a case, that judge usurps the power of the people to make decisions, a power mandated by the Founding Fathers.
The revival of Palin’s case by the appeals court is a significant victory for those who believe in the importance of preserving the jury’s role in our legal system. It sends a strong message that judges must be careful not to overstep their bounds and that the jury’s independence must be safeguarded at all costs. This decision also serves as a reminder that judicial activism, when left unchecked, can erode the very foundations of our democracy. This disregard for our Constitution is a disregard of the people it is designed to protect.
In addition to addressing the premature dismissal of the case, the appeals court also pointed to other errors made during the trial. These included the exclusion of relevant evidence, inaccurate jury instructions, and a legally flawed response to a mid-deliberation jury question. Each of these errors further underscores the need for a new trial—one in which Palin’s case can be heard without the undue influence of judicial overreach.
The issue of judicial activism is not new, but it has become increasingly prominent in recent years as judges have taken on a more active role in shaping the outcomes of high-profile cases. This trend is troubling because it threatens to undermine the balance of power that is essential to our legal system. The judiciary is supposed to be a neutral arbiter, applying the law without bias or prejudice. When judges go beyond this role and start to influence the outcomes of cases in ways that are not justified by the law, they risk eroding public trust in the legal system.
Sarah Palin’s defamation case, once seen as just another skirmish in the ongoing battle between the media and public figures, has now taken on a broader significance. It has become a symbol of the growing resistance to judicial activism and the need to reaffirm the principles that underpin our legal system. The appeals court’s decision to grant Palin a new trial is a step in the right direction, but it also serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of judicial overreach.
As this case moves forward, it will be important to keep in mind the broader implications for our legal system. The jury’s role as the ultimate decider of fact must be preserved, and judges must be careful not to encroach upon this role. The public has a vested interest in ensuring that the judiciary remains impartial and that the legal system continues to function as it was intended—to provide justice for all, without fear or favor.
In conclusion, the revival of Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit is not just a legal victory for her; it is a victory for all of us who believe in the importance of a fair and impartial legal system. It is a reminder that the jury’s role must be protected, and that judicial activism must be kept in check. As we look to the future, it is imperative that we remain vigilant in defending the principles that make our legal system strong, and that we continue to push back against any attempts to undermine these principles.
Todd McMurtry is a nationally recognized attorney whose practice focuses on social media law, cyberbullying, and media/online defamation. His latest book is “Dismissed” available now on Amazon.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member