Washington — On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to review a case brought by casino magnate and Trump supporter Steve Wynn that aimed to challenge a significant ruling establishing a stricter standard for public figures to succeed in defamation lawsuits.
In a formal decision, the Supreme Court rejected 83-year-old Wynn’s request to revisit the precedent set in the landmark case known as New York Times Company v. Sullivan, linked to his ongoing legal dispute with the Associated Press.
This unanimous ruling from 1964 clarified that the First Amendment mandates that a public figure must demonstrate a defendant acted with “actual malice” — either knowing a statement was false or showing a reckless disregard for its truth — in order to prevail in a defamation claim. This heightened standard makes it more challenging for public figures to win such cases, a crucial safeguard for press freedoms recognized by advocates of the First Amendment.
Wynn initiated a lawsuit against the AP in 2018 concerning its coverage of sexual misconduct allegations against him stretching back to the 1970s that were reported to law enforcement. Following the publication of these allegations by the Wall Street Journal, he resigned from his role as chief executive of Wynn Resorts, which he founded, and also stepped down from his position as the finance chairman for the Republican National Committee. Wynn has continuously denied the accusations of misconduct.
The New York Times v. Sullivan case arose when the newspaper published an advertisement requesting donations to support Martin Luther King Jr. against perjury charges, which contained factual inaccuracies. When the Times did not retract the information publicly, Lester Sullivan, the public safety commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, filed a libel lawsuit. Ultimately, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a decision from an Alabama court, reinforcing protections for press coverage.
In recent years, some conservatives have aimed their criticism at the ruling, with at least two sitting justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — suggesting that the court should reconsider it. Thomas expressed in a 2019 opinion, “New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law. If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we.”
