Palin, a one-time Republican vice-presidential nominee, has had Covid-19 before. She's urged people not to get vaccinated, telling an audience in Arizona last month that "it will be over my dead body that I'll have to get a shot".
When he first announced that Palin had a positive result from an at-home test, Rakoff said: "She is, of course, unvaccinated."
Additional tests in the morning also came out positive, Palin's lawyer told the court.
"Since she has tested positive three times, I'm going to assume she's positive," the judge said.
Rakoff said courthouse rules would permit her to return to court on February 3, even if she still tests positive, as long as she has no symptoms. If she does have symptoms, she can be looked at on February 2 by a doctor who provides services to the courts, he said.
Palin's case survived an initial dismissal that was reversed on appeal in 2019, setting the stage for a rare instance that a major news organisation will have to defend itself before a jury in a libel case involving a major public figure.
It's presumed that Palin will be the star witness in the civil case. She's seeking unspecified damages, saying the Times hurt her budding career as a political commentator.
Palin sued the Times in 2017, citing the editorial about gun control published after Louisiana US Representative Steve Scalise, also a Republican, was wounded when a man with a history of anti-GOP activity opened fire on a Congressional baseball team practice in Washington.
In the editorial, the Times wrote that, before the 2011 mass shooting that severely wounded Giffords and killed six others, Palin's political action committee circulated a map of electoral districts that put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.
In a correction two days later, The Times said the editorial had "incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting" and that it had "incorrectly described" the map.
The disputed wording had been added to the editorial by James Bennet, then the editorial page editor. At trial, a jury would have to decide whether he acted with "actual malice", meaning that he knew what he wrote was false, or with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
In pretrial testimony, Bennet cited deadline pressures as he explained that he did not personally research the information about Palin's political action committee before approving the editorial's publication. He said he believed the editorial was accurate when it was published. - AP
