The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear former Las Vegas casino executive Steve Wynn’s appeal challenging the longstanding legal standard for defamation cases involving public figures. The denial, issued without comment, leaves intact the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss Wynn’s libel lawsuit against The Associated Press.
Wynn, 83, had petitioned the court to revisit the landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which set the precedent that public figures must prove “actual malice” to prevail in defamation claims.
His legal team argued that this standard, which requires showing that the media knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, has evolved into a shield for misinformation.
“The fact that media outlets are free to publish demonstrably false stories turns the 1st Amendment on its head,” Wynn’s attorneys said in a statement following the Supreme Court’s decision. “While the Associated Press and its reporter Regina Garcia Cano may claim victory, it is the American people who have lost today.”
Steve Wynn
The case stemmed from a 2018 AP article detailing allegations from two women who claimed that Wynn had engaged in sexual misconduct in the 1970s. Wynn, who has consistently denied the claims, filed a defamation suit against the AP and Garcia Cano. Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit, finding that Wynn had failed to meet the actual malice threshold.
In September 2023, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, concluding there was no “clear and convincing evidence to reasonably infer that the publication was made with actual malice.”
Wynn’s legal team appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for a fundamental reevaluation of the Sullivan standard. Their argument claimed that journalism had become a “privileged profession” and that the current legal framework “absolves journalists from professional misconduct.”
The Supreme Court has previously faced similar requests to revisit Sullivan. In 2023, the justices declined to hear a comparable challenge brought by coal magnate Don Blankenship. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have separately expressed concerns about the scope of the Sullivan ruling.
Thomas reiterated his position in 2023, writing: “I continue to adhere to my view that we should reconsider the actual malice standard.” Gorsuch has also suggested that the precedent has “evolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods.”
Despite these comments, there appears to be limited interest among the broader court to revisit the standard. With four votes required for a case to be heard, Wynn’s petition failed to gain sufficient traction.
Following the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling last year, the Associated Press welcomed the decision and indicated it would pursue legal costs through a lower court.
In September last year, Wynn Resorts agreed to a $70 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by shareholders, who accused the company of failing to disclose sexual misconduct allegations against its Steve Wynn.
