The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to hear a case seeking to weaken legal protections for journalists against defamation lawsuits. On Monday, the justices declined an appeal from Republican megadonor Steve Wynn, who sought to challenge New York Times v. Sullivan, the pivotal 1964 ruling that set a high bar for defamation claims against the media.
That decision established that public figures must prove “actual malice” in order to win a libel case, meaning they must show that false information was published with reckless disregard for the truth. Wynn argued that the ruling was outdated and ill-suited for the digital age, where misinformation spreads rapidly online.
In a petition filed in February, Wynn called for a reevaluation of the precedent, claiming that modern journalism has become dominated by misleading headlines and viral falsehoods. His legal team argued that current defamation standards allow the media to operate with near impunity, harming reputations without consequence.
However, the Supreme Court has historically resisted efforts to change these protections. In 2022, the justices declined a similar case brought by Coral Ridge Ministries Media, which challenged the “actual malice” rule after the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled the group an “anti-LGBTQ hate group.”
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in that case, suggesting that the court should reconsider the Times v. Sullivan ruling. Despite his stance, the majority of the court has maintained the existing legal framework, reinforcing the importance of press freedoms.
Read Also: Law Firm Chairman Explains Deal with Trump, Says Firm Faced Potential ‘Destruction’
The “actual malice” standard is designed to prevent wealthy and powerful individuals from using lawsuits to suppress unfavorable reporting. Public figures and government officials have the ability to counter negative media coverage through press conferences and policy actions rather than legal battles.
For private individuals, the legal threshold for defamation remains lower. Unlike public figures, ordinary people only need to prove that false information was published and caused harm to their reputation.
Wynn’s push against press protections comes amid his own legal troubles. In 2018, he sued the Associated Press for defamation after it reported that two women had accused him of sexual assault in the 1970s. That same year, he resigned as CEO of Wynn Resorts following a Wall Street Journal report that he had paid $7.5 million to settle an alleged rape claim.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled against Wynn in November, stating that he failed to provide “clear and convincing evidence” of actual malice in the reporting. Monday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court leaves New York Times v. Sullivan intact, upholding a key safeguard for journalists covering public figures.
