The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Wednesday revived a libel lawsuit filed by the former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin against the New York Times (NYT).

In 2022, US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the case during jury deliberations. He stated that after hearing all available evidence, Palin had failed to show actual malice. Under New York law, a plaintiff is required to show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant made knowingly false statements with the intent to cause harm.

Rakoff moved under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Palin’s claim. Rule 50 allows a judge to resolve or dismiss a case “if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Despite the dismissal, Rakoff allowed the jury to finish deliberations and render a verdict. The jury rendered a verdict in line with the judge and found the NYT not liable.

Palin argued the dismissal was improper. She stated that the evidence provided was sufficient for a “reasonable jury” to find malice by “clear and convincing evidence.” Furthermore, she argued the court erroneously omitted evidence that was important to the case and would have altered the jury’s verdict.

In their decision, the appeals court agreed with Palin that Radoff improperly dismissed the case under Rule 50. They stated that their was a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” for a jury to render a verdict. Additionally, they stated the judge’s decision to bypass the jury was flawed. Their decision stated:

The jury is sacrosanct in our legal system, and we have a duty to protect its constitutional role, both by ensuring that the jury’s role is not usurped by judges and by making certain that juries are provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law.

The appeals court also agreed with Palin that the district court improperly excluded evidence. Several news articles and certain testimony were excluded as irrelevant under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 401 states that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

The appeals court stated the excluded evidence was relevant as the need to show malice was central to the case and according to case law, malice “is a matter of the defendant’s subjective mental state, and proving it often requires inferential or circumstantial evidence.”

The case will be remanded to the district court for a new trial at a time of increased scrutiny of First Amendment libel protections for media organizations.