A US jury on Tuesday rejected former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's claim that the New York Times had intentionally defamed her in a 2017 editorial.

The New York jurors ruled in the newspaper's favor a day after the judge presiding over the case said he would dismiss the libel lawsuit irrespective of their verdict.

The civil trial was viewed by legal experts as a test case for the US Constitution's First Amendment that protects free speech and journalistic freedom of expression.

• Sarah Palin's husband files for divorce

The bar to prove defamation in the United States is high, due to a famous 1964 Supreme Court ruling known as the New York Times v. Sullivan.

• Conservative icon Sarah Palin endorses Trump for president

A plaintiff needs to show that the defendant intended to cause harm. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that an error was made.

The ruling shields journalists from liability if they make unintentional errors.

District Judge Jed Rakoff said Monday he would toss out the case because Palin's lawyers had failed to prove that the Times had acted with actual malice.

He added that he would allow the jury to reach a verdict anyway because it would "greatly benefit" a court when it hears Palin's likely appeal.

The editorial linked a 2011 shooting in Arizona that wounded lawmaker Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others with an ad run by Palin's political action committee.

The ad, which ran shortly before the attack, showed Gifford's congressional district in the crosshairs of a firearm.

The Times corrected the editorial the next day, saying there was nothing that could demonstrate that the perpetrator had been driven to act by that controversial ad.

Palin, a former governor of Alaska, was Republican candidate John McCain's running mate during his 2008 election defeat to Barack Obama.

RELATED VIDEO

Watch more in iWantv or TFC.tv