Casino magnate Steve Wynn is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a decades-old legal standard that makes it difficult for public figures to win defamation lawsuits. His appeal challenges the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, which set a high bar for proving libel by requiring plaintiffs to show “actual malice”—that is, knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.
Wynn’s legal battle stems from a Nevada court’s dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press over a 2018 report alleging sexual misconduct. The court ruled that Wynn had failed to meet the high burden of proof established under Sullivan. Now, he is asking the justices to revisit this precedent, a move that echoes past criticisms from former President Donald Trump and conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who have questioned whether the ruling still serves its intended purpose in today’s media landscape.
Wynn, a former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, argues that the current standard shields the press even when reporting unsubstantiated allegations. His petition asks whether the Supreme Court should overturn Sullivan’s protections or reconsider their application in modern cases.
In recent years, the court has declined to take up similar challenges, including a 2021 case where Thomas and Gorsuch dissented, calling for a reassessment of the precedent in an era of rapid media evolution. Trump has also been vocal about changing defamation laws, repeatedly criticizing news organizations and filing lawsuits against major outlets—including an unsuccessful $475 million claim against CNN.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear Wynn’s case. If the justices take it up, the outcome could have profound implications for press freedom and defamation law in the United States.
