Supreme Court Declines Steve Wynn's Appeal to Challenge Landmark Press Freedom Precedent

The Court's decision leaves the 'actual malice' standard from New York Times v. Sullivan intact, maintaining robust legal protections for journalists reporting on public figures.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Steve Wynn's petition to revisit the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which requires public figures to prove 'actual malice' in defamation cases.
Wynn's lawsuit against the Associated Press, stemming from a 2018 article on sexual misconduct allegations, was dismissed under Nevada's anti-SLAPP law and upheld by the state's Supreme Court in 2024.
The Court's decision aligns with its recent pattern of declining to hear cases challenging the Sullivan precedent, despite calls from Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch to reconsider it.
First Amendment advocates view the Sullivan standard as a cornerstone of press freedoms, ensuring journalists can report on powerful figures without undue legal risk.
Wynn, a prominent Republican donor, argued that the standard is outdated in the modern media landscape, but the Court's refusal to hear the case leaves the precedent unchanged.

The Nevada Independent

One America News Network