The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge by Steve Wynn, a former casino magnate and top Republican donor, seeking to weaken legal protections for news organizations in defamation cases.
Wynn aimed to overturn the 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark decision that requires public figures to prove “actual malice” in defamation lawsuits. His request was denied without comment.
The lawsuit stemmed from a report by The Associated Press detailing allegations of sexual misconduct against Wynn dating back to the 1970s, which he has denied. In response, he sought to challenge existing libel laws, arguing they unfairly shield media outlets.
President Donald Trump has previously expressed concerns about current libel laws, and conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have signaled openness to revisiting the Sullivan precedent.
In 2023, the court rejected a similar challenge from coal baron Don Blankenship, who sought to weaken the standard for defamation claims. At the time, Thomas reiterated his belief that the actual malice standard should be reconsidered.
In 2021, both Thomas and Gorsuch voiced concerns about the ruling, with Gorsuch arguing that the precedent had “evolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods.”
Despite these critiques, there appears to be little interest from the broader Supreme Court in overturning the Sullivan ruling. A minimum of four justices is required to grant an appeal, and so far, such support has not materialized.
By declining to hear Wynn’s case, the court reaffirmed the strength of existing legal protections for journalists and news organizations. This decision ensures that public figures must still meet a high standard when pursuing defamation claims against the press.