The New York Times just heard a jury verdict that put them one step closer to the Supreme Court

The New York Times sweated out a major legal battle.

Its ramifications could change America forever.

And The New York Times just heard a jury verdict that put them one step closer to the Supreme Court.

A jury returned a verdict in Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.

The jury ruled the Times did not defame Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial where the paper falsely claimed a link between a map on the website of her political action committee with crosshairs over the districts of Democrats she sought to defeat and the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in 2011.

“In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear,” the Times editorial read. “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

Palin sued the Times over this lie.

In her case, Palin proved that the Times went through a sloppy and biased editorial process in putting the piece together.

But because of the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court case, a public figure must prove actual malice in order to win a defamation suit.

Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades hailed the verdict, calling it “a reaffirmation of a fundamental tenet of American law: public figures should not be permitted to use libel suits to punish or intimidate news organizations that make, acknowledge and swiftly correct unintentional errors.”

But the Times may want to keep the champagne on ice.

Palin is almost certain to appeal the verdict.

When Palin filed the case, many believed it was intended as a vehicle to challenge the Sullivan precedent at the Supreme Court.

The Times victory is not final.

It is really only round one of this fight, as this case is likely destined for the Supreme Court.

And conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are on the record as eager to revisit the Sullivan precedent.

So at the end of the day, this may be nothing more than a pyrrhic victory for The New York Times.

Renewed Right will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this ongoing story.