Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case brought by casino mogul and Trump donor Steve Wynn that would have challenged a landmark decision that established a higher standard for public figures to successfully sue for defamation.
The Supreme Court on Monday formally declined to consider 83-year-old Wynn’s request to revisit the court’s decision in a case known as New York Times Company v. Sullivan as a part of Wynn’s legal battle against the Associated Press.
The unanimous 1964 Supreme Court decision determined the First Amendment requires a public figure to prove a defendant acted with “actual malice” and knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded the possibility that it was false to sustain a claim of defamation. The higher standard makes it more difficult for those in the public eye to win defamation cases. First Amendment advocates see it as a fundamental pillar on modern press freedoms.
Wynn sued the AP in 2018 over its reporting about sexual misconduct allegations against him from the 1970s that were filed with law enforcement. He stepped down from his position as chief executive of Wynn Resorts, which he founded, in 2018, after the Wall Street Journal published sexual misconduct allegations. Wynn also stepped down from his role as the finance chairman for the Republican National Committee. Wynn has consistently denied any allegations of misconduct.
The New York Times v. Sullivan case came about after the newspaper published an ad soliciting donations to defend Martin Luther King Jr. on perjury charges. The ad contained some factual inaccuracies. Lester Sullivan, commissioner of public safety in Montgomery, Alabama, filed a libel action when the Times declined to publicly retract the information. All nine justices on the Supreme Court eventually agreed to overturn an Alabama court’s decision and solidify protections for press coverage.
The decision in the case has been targeted by some conservatives in recent years, and at least two sitting justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — have said the court should revisit the ruling.
“New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” Thomas wrote in a 2019 opinion. “If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we.”
Melissa Quinn and
Jacob Rosen
contributed to this report.
