Sarah Palin’s libel lawsuit against the New York Times was dismissed Tuesday. Judge Jed Rakoff of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Palin had failed to show actual malice in an inaccurate editorial dating back to 2017. While Palin is expected to appeal, the ruling temporarily puts an end to the nearly five-year-long lawsuit.

The lawsuit stems from a piece written in 2017 by then New York Times editor James Bennet. The piece, which was published in response to the 2017 shooting at the congressional baseball game, criticized the former Alaska governor for an inflammatory political ad from 2010. The piece incorrectly claimed that there was a connection between Palin’s ad and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011. Bennet claimed that it was a mistake and the New York Times corrected it within 24 hours of publishing.

The jury agreed with Judge Rakoff’s dismissal, highlighting an uncommon practice whereby the judge made a decision while the jury was still deliberating. Judge Rakoff did acknowledge the inaccuracy of the article. However, libel lawsuits face the high burden of demonstrating malice. In practice, the high standard means that exceedingly few libel lawsuits are accepted.

The lawsuit comes at a time when there has been considerable discussion about reevaluating the standard for libel. Some argue that the standard is far too high and does not properly incentivize media companies to take precautions in publishing false information. Others argue that the standard protects journalists and is an essential element of the First Amendment.