The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from casino mogul Steve Wynn, who sought to challenge the longstanding legal standard protecting journalists from libel lawsuits. In a brief order issued Monday, the court declined to reconsider the 1964 landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, a decision that set a high bar for defamation claims involving public figures.

Wynn, the former CEO of Wynn Resorts and a prominent Republican donor had filed a defamation lawsuit in 2018 against The Associated Press (AP) over an article that cited police reports from the 1970s detailing sexual misconduct allegations against him. He has consistently denied the allegations. After Nevada’s highest court dismissed his lawsuit, ruling that the AP had acted in “good faith” and that Wynn failed to demonstrate “actual malice,” he appealed to the Supreme Court.

In his petition, Wynn argued that the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent is outdated and ill-suited for today’s media environment, which he claimed is dominated by “clickbait journalism” and false reporting. His attorneys contended that the ruling grants excessive protection to the press, allowing the publication of “demonstrably false stories” without accountability.

Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Libel Protections

The Supreme Court rejected Wynn’s appeal without issuing a comment, adhering to its usual practice in such cases, according to The Hill. The decision follows a pattern of the court declining to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan in recent years, despite calls for reconsideration from conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Both have previously expressed skepticism about the ruling, with Thomas arguing that it enables media organizations to “cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.”

While Thomas and Gorsuch have voiced support for revisiting the standard, there has been no broader movement within the court to do so. In a previous 2021 case, Thomas wrote that the court should “reconsider the actual malice standard,” while Gorsuch stated that the precedent had “evolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods.”

Implications for Press Freedoms and Public Figures

The New York Times v. Sullivan ruling requires public figures to prove that a defamatory statement was made with “actual malice,” meaning the publisher either knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard has become a cornerstone of First Amendment protections, ensuring that journalists can report on public figures without the constant threat of lawsuits.

Wynn’s case follows other unsuccessful efforts to challenge the standard, including a 2023 appeal by coal baron Don Blankenship, which was also rejected by the Supreme Court. Former President Donald Trump has similarly advocated for reducing libel protections for the media, arguing that current laws make it too difficult for public figures to hold news organizations accountable for false reporting.