A US judge on Monday said he will throw out Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times after concluding that the newspaper did not in an editorial maliciously link the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican US vice presidential candidate to a mass murder.
In an unexpected twist in a trial seen as a test of longstanding protections for American media, US District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said Ms Palin's lawsuit will be dismissed because she failed to show the Times acted with "actual malice."
But the judge said he will enter a formal dismissal order only after jurors, who began deliberations on Friday, reach their own verdict.
Judge Rakoff said he expected Ms Palin to appeal, and that the appeals court "would greatly benefit from knowing how the jury would decide it".
The judge's action effectively takes the case out of the hands of the jurors in a trial that began on February 3rd. Jurors will continue deliberating without being informed of the judge's action.
Lawyers for the Times and Ms Palin were not immediately available for comment.
Dismissal
Judge Rakoff, an appointee of Democratic former president Bill Clinton, said he was "not altogether happy" about ordering a dismissal, calling the original editorial "an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times".
But the judge went on: "My job is to apply the law. The law here sets a very high standard for actual malice, and in this case the court finds that that standard has not been met."
Gautam Hans, a Vanderbilt University law professor, said Judge Rakoff's order, while unusual, is reasonable and will likely hold up on appeal.
"It is very difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in defamation cases," Mr Hans said. "That's one reason you see some antipathy toward the current state of the law, including from some Supreme Court justices."
Ms Palin, 58, had sued the newspaper - one of America's most prominent media organisations - and its former editorial page editor James Bennet.
She contended that a June 14th, 2017, editorial incorrectly linked her to a mass shooting six years earlier that wounded Democratic US congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
Ms Palin had said that if she lost at trial, her appeal might challenge New York Times v Sullivan, the 1964 US Supreme Court decision establishing the "actual malice" standard for public figures to prove defamation.
Headlined "America's Lethal Politics," that addressed gun control and lamented the rise of incendiary political rhetoric.
It was written the same day as a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia where Republican US congressman Steve Scalise was wounded.
One of Mr Bennet's colleagues prepared a draft that referred to the January 2011 shooting in a Tucson, Arizona, parking lot where six people were killed and Ms Giffords was wounded.
Mr Bennet inserted language that said "the link to political incitement was clear" between the Giffords shooting and a map previously circulated by Palin's political action committee that the draft editorial said put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under crosshairs.
The Times corrected the editorial about 14 hours later. Mr Bennet testified that he made the additions too quickly under deadline pressure, and intended no harm to Ms Palin.
It is rare for a major media outlet to defend its editorial practices in court, as the Times had to do in this case.
Ms Palin had sought unspecified monetary damages.
'David v Goliath'
On the witness stand, Ms Palin compared herself, a celebrated conservative politician with a national following, to the biblical underdog David against the Times' Goliath, while accusing the newspaper of trying to "score political points."
Ms Palin testified that the editorial left her feeling "powerless" and "mortified," and that the correction issued by the newspaper the morning after publication was accurate but insufficient and did not mention her by name.
She maintained that the Times undermined her reputation by falsely linking her to a mass murder and by not being fast or thorough enough in correcting its error.
Ms Palin, who no longer commands as much public attention as she once did, struggled under cross-examination to provide specific examples about how the editorial harmed her reputation and cost her opportunities.
Times lawyer David Axelrod in closing arguments on Friday told jurors the editorial amounted to an "honest mistake" and was not meant as a "political hit piece".
The case placed renewed attention on Ms Palin, the late Senator John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election.
That campaign made Ms Palin a Republican Party star and hero to many conservatives who viewed her as an outsider willing to take on liberals and established institutions including the news media. She served as Alaska's governor from 2006 to 2009.
