Landmark Libel Law Survives Yet Another Challenge
Casino magnate Steve Wynn’s attempt to challenge the long-standing New York Times v. Sullivan precedent was shut down by the U.S. Supreme Court, marking another failed effort to revise the legal definition of defamation for public figures. The Court’s denial of Wynn’s appeal keeps intact the high legal threshold that public figures must meet to win libel cases—proof of “actual malice.”
The suit stemmed from AP reporting on sexual assault allegations against Wynn from the 1970s, which he claims were false and defamatory. But under current law, Wynn had to prove the AP published the claims knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth—a bar the Nevada courts ruled he didn’t meet.
Political and Judicial Tensions Simmer Beneath the Surface
Wynn’s case wasn’t just about personal vindication. It was also part of a broader movement, backed by figures like Donald Trump and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, to challenge media protections under the First Amendment. Critics argue the current standard allows too much leeway for misinformation. Supporters say it’s critical to a free press.
By rejecting Wynn’s appeal, the Court essentially reaffirmed its stance: public scrutiny and freedom of speech take precedence, even if that means some reputational risk for those in the public eye.
Personal Perspective: Defining Truth in a Disinformation Age
This case highlights a deep philosophical divide in the modern media landscape. While no one wants false accusations to go unchecked, loosening defamation standards could create a chilling effect on investigative journalism. Balancing press freedom with accountability is no easy task, but the current framework—though imperfect—remains a cornerstone of democratic discourse.
