Former Alaska Republican Governor Sarah Palin said she will continue pursuing justice against The New York Times, reviving debate over political rhetoric, media responsibility, and violence in American public life.
The former running mate of 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain wrote in an April 27 post on X that she would not stop pressing her case against the newspaper, despite two jury verdicts favoring The New York Times and a federal judge’s refusal last year to grant her a new trial. “I won’t stop pursuing justice with NYT though. It’s not retaliation, it IS justice, as they’ve skated long enough,” Palin wrote.
Yup.
Multi-year lawsuit against #NYT for blaming me for murders “caused by” a PR firm using target emojis for congressional districts that SarahPAC targeted to win that year. (The same emojis democrats used on their political maps!) Millions of dollars spent, jobs lost,… https://t.co/Bmw3Ps38z9 pic.twitter.com/PV7R3OVSq4— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) April 28, 2026
Palin’s post responded to another X user who shared an image of her 2010 SarahPAC flyer that placed stylized crosshairs over 20 Democratic-held congressional districts, including that of then-Representative Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords of Arizona. Giffords, a former Democratic congresswoman, was severely wounded in a January 8, 2011, mass shooting in Tucson when gunman Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a constituent event. Six people were killed, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. Thirteen other people were wounded.
Extensive investigations, court records, contemporaneous reporting, and fact-check reviews found no evidence that Loughner ever saw the SarahPAC map or that the graphic motivated the attack. That absence of evidence later became central to Palin’s libel lawsuit.
Palin sued The New York Times in 2017 after an editorial published following the congressional baseball practice shooting that wounded Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana suggested a link between Palin’s political rhetoric and the 2011 Giffords attack. The newspaper issued a correction the next day, stating “no such link was established.”
Palin claimed in court filings that the false statements had a personal and professional impact on her, writing that, “Among other things it led to the end of her position as a Fox News political commentator, influenced her decision not to run for President of the United States, and tainted her personal and professional image.”
Two Manhattan juries later found the Times not liable for defamation. In December 2025, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, whom Democratic President Bill Clinton appointed, denied Palin’s request for judgment in her favor or a new trial. A spokesperson for the newspaper said at the time the verdict “reaffirms the jury’s decision,” according to reporting by Politico.
Palin’s new comments suggest she views the matter as unresolved.
Her post lands amid a broader national argument over violent rhetoric and whether incendiary political language can contribute to unstable individuals committing attacks. That debate intensified after multiple armed attacks involving President Donald Trump since 2024, including the recent shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. A suspected gunman in that case allegedly left behind a manifesto targeting administration officials, according to a previous report by The Dallas Express.
Palin framed her case in that larger context, arguing she was falsely blamed for “assassinations” despite, she says, no proven connection to violence.
Her lawsuit has long been seen as testing the boundaries of defamation law for public figures under the Supreme Court’s New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) standard, which requires proof of actual malice when a public figure seeks a judgment against a newspaper for libel.
The legal standard for defamation can be met when a party “knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate,” according to the Justia summary of the case.
While Palin has not publicly detailed a new procedural step, her post suggests she may continue action against the paper.
In mid-March, Law&Crime reported, “Palin dismissed the appeal to enter court-ordered mediation with the New York Times and that the expectation is she will continue her appeal by April 10 if no settlement is reached. Our understanding is that there isn’t a settlement.”
Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokesperson for The New York Times, told The Dallas Express via email on April 28:
“It is a foundational principle of American law that public figures cannot use libel suits to punish unintentional errors by news organizations. We made an error that was quickly corrected. We’re deeply committed to fairness and accuracy in our journalism. We are confident the appeals court will uphold the jury’s decision in favor of The Times.”
Palin did not respond to a DX request for clarification on her next steps.
The renewed attention also reopens a recurring cultural question: whether heated political metaphors are unfairly interpreted as incitement after violence occurs, or whether public figures bear broader responsibility for the language they use. Palin’s latest comments place that unresolved debate back in view.
