Palin v. New York Times Co.

The New York Times (the Times) (defendant) published an editorial stating that there was a connection between a map, published by the political action committee of Sarah Palin (plaintiff) and showing congressional districts with crosshair targets over them, and the shooting by Jared Loughner at a political rally for Gabrielle Giffords. Palin sued the Times for defamation, alleging that no connection was established between the shooting and the political action committee’s map. The Times moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that Palin’s complaint failed to allege that the Times published the editorial with actual malice, a required element of a defamation claim. The district court held a hearing and received evidence on the Times’ motion to dismiss. After crediting the testimony of the editorial’s author, the district court determined that Palin failed to state a defamation claim and granted the Times’ motion to dismiss. Palin requested reconsideration and included a proposed amended complaint. Palin’s proposed amended complaint alleged that the editorial’s author was aware of previous articles concluding that there was no connection between the political action committee’s map and the shooting. The district court relied on the author’s hearing testimony to determine that it was more likely that the editorial mistakenly stated that a connection existed between Palin and the Loughner shooting and, therefore, Palin had not plausibly pleaded that the Times had acted with actual malice. The district court denied Palin’s motion for reconsideration and denied leave to amend the complaint. Palin appealed. The Times argued on appeal that the only inference that could be plausibly drawn from Palin’s proposed amended complaint was that the editorial’s inclusion of a false statement about Palin was unintentional.