Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Landmark Defamation Ruling
The Supreme Court has denied a request by Steve Wynn to challenge the 1964 ruling that protects news outlets from defamation suits by public figures.
Subscribe to unlock this story
We really don't like cutting you off, but you've reached your monthly limit. At just $3/month or $30/year, subscriptions are how we keep this project going. Start your free 7-day trial today!
Get Started
But Wynn’s rejection is the latest evidence that it isn’t immediately at risk at the high court.
Supreme Court declines to hear Trump donor's challenge to press freedom precedent
MSNBC·1M·Mostly ReliableThis source is generally reliable but sometimes includes opinion, propaganda, or minor inaccuracies.LeftThis outlet favors left-wing views.
The higher standard makes it more difficult for those in the public eye to win defamation cases.
Supreme Court won't take up Trump ally's effort to challenge landmark defamation case
CBS News·1M·ReliableThis source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.CenterThis outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.
There's still energy on the court's right wing to overturn Sullivan, but SCOTUS has turned away multiple cases over the past several years that would have given it the chance to do so.
Axios·1M·ReliableThis source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.CenterThis outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.
So far, there appears to be no appetite among other justices to take up the issue, with four votes required for an appeal to be heard.
Supreme Court turns down Trump donor Steve Wynn's bid to overturn libel precedent
NBC News·1M·ReliableThis source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.CenterThis outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.
Summary
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by casino mogul Steve Wynn to the 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove 'actual malice' in defamation suits. This decision reaffirms journalistic protections against unfounded libel claims. Wynn's lawsuit against the Associated Press related to misconduct allegations he denied. While some justices have expressed interest in revisiting this precedent, there appears to be insufficient support to reconsider it at this time.
Perspectives
The Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by Steve Wynn that attempted to challenge the established defamation standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires proof of 'actual malice' for public figures.
Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have previously shown interest in overturning the Sullivan ruling, but the court's current composition does not appear to support revisiting this precedent.
The ruling upholds strong protections for press freedom and has been deemed essential for safeguarding journalists against frivolous defamation lawsuits.