Analysis: Sarah Palin defamation case a long shot for U.S. Supreme Court, experts say

[Yonnie3]

By Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Sarah Palin faces a narrow path ahead if she wants to use her defamation case against the New York Times (NYT.N) as a vehicle to challenge broad U.S. legal protections for news organizations, media lawyers said.

After losing a jury trial on Tuesday, the prominent Republican is likely to appeal and ultimately to ask the Supreme Court to revisit a landmark ruling called New York Times v. Sullivan, experts said.

-----snip-----

U.S. protections against defamation challenges are generally stronger than they are in other countries, and some critics have said this framework provides too much license for error, especially in the internet age. Defenders of the standard say it has been essential to safeguarding a free press.

But even if the high court is interested in reconsidering the Sullivan case — which is far from clear — Palin's lawsuit may not present the ideal opportunity for doing so, in part because both a judge and jury have now forcefully ruled against her, media law experts said.

-----snip-----

Full article at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/sarah-palin-defamation-case-long-shot-us-supreme-court-experts-2022-02-16/

[no_hypocrisy]

1. It's her money to lose.

She'll have to pay her attorney, not the NY Times.

[PJMcK]

4. Are you sure it's her money?

I have an unfounded suspicion that there is dark money behind Palin's lawsuit. The case has gone on for 4 years and if she appeals this ruling, it will take several more years to move through the appellate court and then perhaps onto SCOTUS. That's got to cost a lot of money in legal fees.

What could Palin be seeking by continuing the case? She hasn't shown that the NY Times editorial has harmed her in any way. She's still (mostly) a darling of the Right and she's got enough popularity to be featured on TV shows and in interviews. Since her suit is a civil case, the only "win" she could get would be monetarily and if, incredibly, the NY Times were to lose, they'd simply pay her some money. There's no way it would be big bucks (like the $14 million Prince Andrew will reportedly pay).

So, I think that there is a person or a group that is quietly footing her legal costs. The fundamental SCOTUS case that underlies Palin's suit is Sullivan vs. The New York Times. Briefly, this case affirms the First Amendment's protection of a free press and raises a high bar for defamation suits by public officials. This has been a thorn in the side of conservatives who would love to see this case revisited and severely weakened. At least two Justices have mused that they would like to hear a challenge to Sullivan.

I think this is one of those GOP issues that they will try to sneak under the radar by using a proxy like Palin. I also think they will fail and Palin's loss yesterday is significant because both the jury and the judge ruled against her. That won't help her on appeal.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. All good points.

[Yonnie3]

7. What about right wing radio, Fox & etc?

I would think that overriding Sullivan would put these right wing liars at much risk. I'm sure that they have a plan to protect them. Perhaps that they are entertainment, not news.

I am suspicious as to the funding also.

[secondwind]

2. She is fishing for CASH. must be going broke.....

[PJMcK]

5. That can't be her motivation

This case has taken 4 years. That's a lot of billable hours for her lawyers. Even if she were to win her case-- and she won't-- the monetary damages would not be a lot of money. Certainly not enough after the lawyers take their cut for Palin to continue living the high life.

I think this case is about challenging Sullivan vs. The New Times which was a SCOTUS decision affirming the First Amendment's protections for a free press and setting very high standards for public officials to sue a publication for defamation. Conservatives would love to restrict the press.