• A federal appeals court for the second time overturned the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin against The New York Times, and ordered a new trial in the case.
• Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president in 2008, alleges she was defamed by a Times editorial that suggested the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords of Arizona was linked to a digital graphic published by Palin's political action committee the prior year.
• Manhattan federal Judge Jed Rakoff has twice tossed out Palin's suit.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday for the second time overturned the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin against The New York Times, and ordered a new trial in the case.

Palin, who was the Republican nominee for vice president in 2008, alleges she was defamed by a Times editorial in 2017 that suggested the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords of Arizona was linked to a digital graphic published by Palin's political action committee the prior year.

The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2019 reinstated Palin's lawsuit after it was first dismissed by Manhattan federal Judge Jed Rakoff, who had ruled she did not sufficiently plead a claim of "actual malice" in her complaint.

On Wednesday, the same appeals court said Rakoff, in the middle of jury deliberations at a February 2022 trial on the suit, erred again by ruling in favor of the Times and dismissing the complaint after finding that no reasonable jury could find the Times was motivated by actual malice against Palin.

Rakoff told lawyers he would dismiss the suit only after the jury returned its verdict. Jurors later ruled that the Times was "not liable" for the allegations.

In the appeals court's ruling on Wednesday, a three-judge panel said Rakoff's decision to dismiss the lawsuit "improperly intruded on the province of the jury by making credibility determinations."

The appeals panel in its decision also cited "several major issues at trial," including the "erroneous exclusion of evidence, and inaccurate jury instruction," a "legally erroneous response" by Rakoff to a question from jurors and "jurors learning during deliberations" of Rakoff's dismissal of the complaint.

"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 panel said.

"We therefore VACATE and REMAND for proceedings, including a new trial, consistent with this opinion."

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for the Times, in a statement said, "This decision is disappointing."

"We're confident we will prevail in a retrial," Stadtlander added.

Shane Vogt, an attorney who represented Palin in her appeal, in a statement, said, "Governor Palin is very happy with today's decision, which is a significant step forward in the process of holding publishers accountable for content that misleads readers and the public in general."

"The truth deserves a level playing field, and Governor Palin looks forward to presenting her case to a jury that is 'provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law' as set forth in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion," Vogt said.