New York Times Petitions for En Banc Rehearing of Decision Reviving Palin's Defamation Suit
Attorneys for the Times argued the Aug. 6 opinion from a three-judge Second Circuit panel "misapprehended two bedrock First Amendment principles" concerning allegations of actual malice and protected statements of opinion and said that, if not corrected, the opinion would have the effect of dampening political debate.
August 20, 2019 at 03:10 PM
3 minute read
The New York Times on Tuesday petitioned the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc rehearing of a panel decision to revive Sarah Palin’s defamation suit, which targets the paper over a since-corrected editorial that linked her political action committee to a 2011 mass shooting that left a former congresswoman seriously injured.
Attorneys for the Times argued the Aug. 6 opinion from a three-judge Second Circuit panel “misapprehended two bedrock First Amendment principles” concerning allegations of actual malice and protected statements of opinion and said that, if not corrected, the opinion would have the effect of dampening political debate.
The filing argued that the panel incorrectly premised its decision on a finding of recklessness on the part of the editorial’s author and allegations that the misstatements were motivated by political animus. The panel, the Times’ lawyers said, also employed the wrong constitutional standard for deciding whether Palin’s claims covered non-actionable expressions of opinion.
“The panel’s opinion conflicts with the Supreme Court’s and this circuit’s prior decisions, materially altering both the actual malice standard and the constitutional protections afforded expressions of opinion,” Jay Ward Brown, a partner with Ballard Spahr wrote in the 18-page filing.
The motion would put to a vote of the Second Circuit’s 11 active justices whether the issues should be reheard by the full court. Such requests, however, are rarely granted, and the court recently reiterated that it maintains a “tradition” of rehearing.
The unanimous panel’s decision earlier this month reversed a Southern District judge’s decision to dismiss the suit for making no showing of actual malice by the Times.
Palin has claimed the editorial in question, called “America’s Lethal Politics,” linked her to a 2011 shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, at the hands of Jared Loughner. Six people were killed in the shooting; U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, was shot in the head but survived.
Prior to the shooting in Tucson, a political action committee controlled by Palin distributed a flier showing the geographic location of Giffords’ district and those of other elected officials under stylized crosshairs.
The Times’ own reporting, and an ABC News story hyperlinked to the editorial, stated there was no link between the political literature and Loughner’s actions. The Times twice corrected the editorial.
Read More:
Sarah Palin’s Defamation Suit Against NYT Is Revived by 2nd Circuit
Judge Tosses Palin’s Defamation Suit Against The New York Times
Sarah Palin, Plaintiff v. The New York Times Company, Defendant, 17-cv-4853 (JSR)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew York Judge Steps Down After Conviction for Intoxicated Driving
American Bar Association Calls for Enforceable Supreme Court Ethics Code
Trending Stories
- 1HSF Accounts Show Operating Loss in America For 2024
- 2McCarter & English Adds Outgoing U.S. Attorney
- 3Chinese Firms Hire Partners from Kirkland and Paul Hastings in Hong Kong
- 4'He Used Some Colorful Language': Yale Defamation Case Survives
- 5Man Charged in Daylong Shooting Rampage in Memphis Is Serving as His Own Lawyer
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250