The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found several major issues that "impugn the reliability" of the original outcome, faulting the trial judge for dismissing the case prematurely. The court criticized the exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction, a mismanaged response to a jury question, and jurors learning of the dismissal ruling during deliberations as factors undermining the verdict.

Sarah Palin's lawyer, Shane Vogt, expressed satisfaction with the decision and highlighted the importance of holding publishers accountable for misleading content. Vogt emphasized that the truth deserves a level playing field, and Palin looks forward to presenting her case to a jury that is provided with relevant evidence and receives proper instructions on the law.

The lawsuit stems from a 2017 editorial published by The New York Times, titled "America's Lethal Politics." The piece connected the 2011 shooting of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to a graphic from Palin's political action committee, depicting crosshairs over Democratic congressional districts. However, no relationship between the graphic and the shooting was ever established, as the attack was widely attributed to the shooter's mental illness at the time.

Palin initially filed a defamation lawsuit, which was dismissed but subsequently vacated by the Second Circuit in 2019. The case proceeded to trial in 2022, where Judge Jed Rakoff granted a directed verdict in favor of The New York Times just days before the jury reached its decision, determining that the newspaper was not liable for defaming Palin.

In its opinion issued on Wednesday, the appeals court agreed with Palin's claim that Rakoff had ignored or discredited her evidence of actual malice and had substituted his own judgment for that of the jury. This finding supports Palin's argument that The New York Times acted with "actual malice" when it published the editorial erroneously linking her political action committee to the mass shooting.

The New York Times responded to the decision, expressing disappointment but maintaining confidence in their ability to prevail in a retrial. At the time of the original ruling, Rakoff had set aside the verdict and dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Palin had not met the high standard of proving "actual malice" on the part of the newspaper.

Palin's lawsuit against The New York Times centers around her assertion that the newspaper intentionally damaged her career as a political commentator and consultant by publishing a defamatory editorial. The editorial in question was published on the same day as a shooting incident involving GOP politicians practicing for a congressional charity baseball game, leading to several injuries.

During the trial, Palin accused The New York Times of fabricating information to tarnish her reputation. The former opinion editor, James Bennet, testified that the erroneous information in the editorial was an honest mistake and that he had no intention of causing harm.

The revival of Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times brings renewed hope for the former vice presidential nominee to seek justice and clear her name. The case will now proceed to a retrial, where she will have the opportunity to present her case to a jury in accordance with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion.