## Facts

- Sarah Palin, a public figure, sued The New York Times Company and later its Opinion Editor, James Bennet, for defamation arising from a June 14, 2017 editorial, “America’s Lethal Politics.”
- The editorial discussed the 2017 congressional baseball-practice shooting and the 2011 Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
- The editorial stated there was a “clear” and “direct” link between a SarahPAC crosshairs map targeting certain congressional districts (including Giffords’s) and the 2011 shooting; no such causal link had been established.
- The Times issued corrections after publication.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plausibly plead “actual malice.”
- On appeal, Palin relied on a proposed amended complaint alleging Bennet knew or recklessly disregarded the lack of any proven link and that his prior editorial experience suggested awareness of facts contradicting the editorial’s claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court may rely on evidence outside the pleadings to decide a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting the motion to summary judgment with proper notice.
2. Whether a public-figure defamation plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint plausibly alleged actual malice sufficient to survive dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the district court erred by relying on facts outside the pleadings when granting a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- The court held the proposed amended complaint plausibly alleged actual malice and therefore stated a defamation claim adequate to proceed beyond the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 12(b)(6) review is generally confined to the complaint and limited materials properly considered on a motion to dismiss; reliance on extrinsic evidence requires conversion to summary judgment procedures with appropriate safeguards.
- A public-figure defamation plaintiff must plausibly allege “actual malice,” meaning the defendant published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for probable falsity.
- At the pleading stage, the question is plausibility, not whether the plaintiff can ultimately prove actual malice.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit reinstated Palin’s defamation action at the pleading stage, ruling that dismissal based on extra-pleading evidence was procedurally improper and that the amended allegations permitted a reasonable inference of actual malice, requiring the case to proceed in the district court.


Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2019)