## Facts

- Sarah Palin, a public figure, sued The New York Times Company and editorial-page editor James Bennet for defamation arising from a June 14, 2017 editorial about political violence.
- The editorial initially asserted there was a “clear” and “direct” link between a map circulated by Palin’s political action committee and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and stated the map placed Giffords and other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.
- The Times issued a correction the next day clarifying that no such link had been established.
- The district court initially dismissed the case at the pleading stage, but the Second Circuit reinstated it, holding the amended allegations plausibly supported actual malice and that the district court had relied on extra-pleading evidence.
- On remand, the district court applied New York’s amended anti-SLAPP statute to require proof of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence as a matter of state law.
- In a 2022 jury trial, the district court granted defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion while the jury deliberated (finding insufficient evidence of actual malice), but allowed deliberations to continue; the jury returned a verdict of no liability.
- Palin appealed both the Rule 50 judgment and the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court applied the correct Rule 50 standard by drawing reasonable inferences for the nonmovant and avoiding credibility determinations in evaluating actual malice.
2. Whether trial errors—including evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and responses to juror questions—rendered the defense verdict unreliable.
3. Whether jurors’ awareness during deliberations that the court had granted Rule 50 required vacatur of the verdict and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s Rule 50 judgment.
- The Second Circuit vacated the judgment entered on the jury’s not-liable verdict.
- The court held the Rule 50 ruling improperly weighed evidence and made credibility determinations instead of drawing all reasonable inferences in Palin’s favor.
- The court held multiple trial-level errors, including jurors learning of the Rule 50 dismissal during deliberations, undermined the reliability of the verdict.
- The case was remanded for a new trial; the court did not decide whether Palin ultimately proved actual malice.

## Legal Principles

- A public-figure defamation plaintiff must prove “actual malice”—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth—by clear and convincing evidence.
- On Rule 50 (judgment as a matter of law), a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, and refrain from weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility.
- Trial management errors that affect the jury’s ability to decide disputed facts—such as erroneous exclusion of malice-related evidence, legally incorrect jury instructions or answers to deliberation questions, and juror exposure to prejudicial extrinsic information—can require vacatur and a new trial.
- State anti-SLAPP provisions may impose procedural and evidentiary burdens in defamation actions in addition to federal constitutional requirements, including a clear-and-convincing burden for actual malice when applicable.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit set aside both the district court’s mid-deliberation Rule 50 dismissal and the defense verdict because the Rule 50 analysis exceeded its proper limits and the trial was affected by errors that compromised the verdict’s reliability, requiring a new trial on Palin’s defamation claims.


Palin v. N.Y. Times Co., 113 F.4th 245 (2d Cir. 2024)