US Supreme Court Denies Wynn’s Appeal to Overturn Defamation Protections

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has declined to hear an appeal from Steve Wynn, the billionaire founder and former boss of Wynn Resorts, in his legal battle against the Associated Press (AP). Wynn’s case challenged longstanding defamation protections established by the Court’s 1964 landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which has established the “actual malice” standard in cases involving public figures who have brought libel claims with state and federal courts.

Wynn’s Legal Challenge Dismissed

Wynn’s lawsuit stemmed from a 2018 AP report that detailed allegations of sexual assault against him that supposedly took place throughout the 1970s. The report was based on two complaints obtained from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department by the AP and the journalist who wrote the original story.

Wynn, who has firmly denied the allegations, argued that the AP’s reporting was defamatory and lacked factual basis. He argued that the reporting was biased and set to cause the businessman harm.

A Nevada top court sided with the AP and dismissed Wynn’s case, ruling that he failed to prove the newswire had indeed acted with “actual malice.” The standard argues that the outlet should have knowingly published and maintained a false narrative or purposefully disregarded facts that established a fact, i.e. Wynn not being involved in the said cases from the 1970s. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld this decision, which forced Wynn’s head to seek input from SCOTUS.

Supreme Court Upholds Defamation Protections

SCOTUS’s refusal to hear Wynn’s case leaves the Sullivan standard safe for the time being, reinforcing strong First Amendment protections which are essentially for good journalism to thrive. Wynn’s legal team expressed disappointment, however, arguing that the standard was misused in this particular case:

“The fact that media outlets are free to publish demonstrably false stories turns the First Amendment on its head.”

Despite growing scrutiny of Sullivan, particularly among conservative justices, the Court has consistently declined to revisit the ruling. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have previously argued that the legal standard should be reconsidered, citing the evolving media landscape and concerns over misinformation.

In other words, public figures are finding it too hard to win defamation cases, and this ought to change, the Justices may seem to suggest.

Press Freedom Remains a Contentious Issue

The ruling comes amid heightened political debates over press freedom. Former President Donald Trump has frequently criticized defamation laws as overly protective of the media, calling coverage that displeased him “fake news.”

For now, SCOTUS’s decision shows that the country’s highest court has an unwavering commitment to protecting journalists from legal retaliation by public figures. Wynn, however, has shown no signs of backing down from his efforts to challenge those who report against his person and tarnish his reputation.