Casino mogul Steve Wynn has filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a key defamation ruling that has been a cornerstone of libel law for more than 60 years. Wynn’s appeal, if accepted, could provide the justices an opportunity to reevaluate the protections journalists have under the First Amendment, particularly in cases involving public figures.
The case centers on the New York Times v. Sullivan decision, a landmark ruling from 1964. This ruling set a high bar for defamation lawsuits by public figures, requiring them to prove that statements were made with “actual malice”—meaning the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The decision was made to protect free speech and the press.
Wynn, the former CEO of Wynn Resorts and a former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, is challenging a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court. In 2018, Wynn sued The Associated Press (AP) and one of its journalists for publishing a report that alleged he had sexually assaulted a woman in the 1970s. The Nevada court dismissed his defamation suit, ruling that Wynn failed to prove the report had been published with actual malice.
Under New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures can only win defamation cases if they can prove the statement was made with malice. This rule has been widely adopted by state laws, including in Nevada.
Wynn’s appeal asks the Supreme Court to reconsider whether the actual-malice standard in Sullivan should still apply. Specifically, Wynn is questioning whether the court should overturn this long-established rule.
In order for the Supreme Court to take up the case, at least four of the nine justices must vote in favor. No timeline has been set for when the justices will decide whether to hear Wynn’s case.
The defamation lawsuit stems from an AP article that included claims of sexual assault. These allegations were based on two citizen complaints that an AP reporter obtained from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Wynn disputes one of the complaints, which he believes is implausible and was later dismissed in another legal case. The court found the allegations to be “clearly fanciful or delusional.” Wynn has strongly denied the assault claims.
The Supreme Court has previously declined to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, even after conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch voiced concerns. In 2021, the court rejected an opportunity to reconsider the ruling. Both Thomas and Gorsuch wrote separate opinions, arguing that the rise of disinformation in the media should prompt the court to reassess the protections that make it harder for public figures to win defamation lawsuits.
Since 2015, when Donald Trump launched his first presidential campaign, he has frequently attacked media outlets he perceives as hostile to him. Trump has also filed numerous defamation lawsuits against the press. In 2023, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, where Trump claimed the network’s use of the term “the big lie” linked him to Adolf Hitler. In that case, Trump’s lawyers invited the court to reconsider the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, arguing that it fails to protect the public from false information.
Wynn’s case and Trump’s past comments highlight an ongoing debate over the balance between protecting freedom of the press and holding journalists accountable for false or defamatory reporting. Both figures are seeking to weaken the legal standards that shield journalists, arguing that the current rules allow false information to spread unchecked. Whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear Wynn’s case and revisit Sullivan remains uncertain.