940 F.3d 804
2d Cir.2019Background
- 2011: Jared Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; Sarah Palin’s PAC earlier circulated a map overlaying crosshairs on certain Democratic districts (Giffords’ district included). No evidence linked Palin or her PAC to Loughner.
- June 14, 2017: After a separate shooting, the New York Times Editorial Board published an editorial that (as initially written) suggested a link between Palin/SarahPAC and the Giffords shooting; the Times quickly corrected the editorial and removed the language.
- Palin sued the Times in federal court (defamation under New York law), alleging the editorial falsely linked her/SarahPAC to the Loughner shooting and that the Times published with actual malice.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, heard testimony from James Bennet (the editorial author), and relied on that testimony to dismiss Palin’s complaint with prejudice without converting the motion to summary judgment.
- The Second Circuit held the district court erred by relying on evidence outside the pleadings at the 12(b)(6) stage (without Rule 12(d)/56 conversion) and concluded Palin’s proposed amended complaint plausibly alleged actual malice and other elements of defamation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly relied on evidentiary hearing testimony when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Palin: court violated Rule 12(d) by considering outside evidence without converting to summary judgment | Times: testimony was integral to the complaint or conversion can be treated as implicit | Court: error — cannot rely on matters outside pleadings without 12(d) conversion or exclusion; vacated dismissal |
| Whether Palin plausibly pleaded actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) | Palin: allegations (Bennet’s editorial role, prior Atlantic articles, drafting/hyperlink choices, possible bias, quick correction) permit inference of actual malice | Times: most plausible explanation is inadvertent error/research failure, not actual malice | Court: PAC plausibly alleges actual malice; credibility issues for jury, not for dismissal |
| Whether statements were “of and concerning” Palin | Palin: editorial referenced "Sarah Palin's political action committee" and readers would identify her | Times: SarahPAC is a separate legal entity; not necessarily about Palin personally | Court: pleadings sufficiently plausible that readers would identify Palin as the subject |
| Whether challenged statements are capable of being proven false (opinion vs. fact) | Palin: reasonable readers could view the editorial as asserting a factual linkage between Palin/SarahPAC and the Giffords shooting | Times: motivations of Loughner are speculative and not provably false | Court: statements reasonably susceptible of being read as fact; satisfies falsity element at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and drawing inferences in plaintiff's favor)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (actual malice standard for public-figure defamation)
- Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC, 872 F.3d 97 (Second Circuit on “of and concerning” and pleading standards)
- Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters., 209 F.3d 163 (elements of defamation under New York law)
- Church of Scientology Int’l v. Behar, 238 F.3d 168 (actual malice and reckless disregard standard)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (distinguishing opinion from provably false factual assertions)