She doesn’t hold elected or appointed political office. Doesn’t she have the same rights as a “private citizen” as anybody else? (Sincere question. I know nothing about such things.)
One would think so. But experts in these things seem to say it makes for a much tougher road, by being a such a public figure.
She has a right to sue in defamation, but she has a more difficult burden of proof than your ordinary private citizen. Because she is a public figure, there is a right to free speech that must be balanced against the right to protect her reputation. This is solved, theoretically, by requiring her to show “actual malice” (aka NYT malice) on the part of the defamer. So she must prove that the claims are false, and that the defamer knew or should have known they were false when they published them. It is rare to have a smoking gun that shows such malice, but perhaps an email or other private communication would turn up in discovery. Anyway, this difficulty, combined with the political cost of keeping the false statements in the headlines, precludes most public figures from suing in defamation. Rebuttal or defiant dismissal are more likely. Not ideal, but that Constitution of ours is worth protecting, as I’m sure Sarah would agree.