The Supreme Court has declined to take up Steve Wynn's appeal to reconsider a landmark decision on defamation involving public figures.
NBC News reported that this decision upholds the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, which requires proof of "actual malice" in defamation cases against public figures.
Steve Wynn, a well-known former casino executive and prominent donor to Republican causes, had petitioned the Supreme Court to revisit the longstanding precedent set by New York Times v. Sullivan.
This landmark case established the necessity of proving "actual malice" when public figures file lawsuits for defamation.
Wynn's legal challenge arose after he filed a defamation lawsuit against The Associated Press. The AP had reported on accusations of sexual misconduct against Wynn, with allegations dating back to the 1970s.
Wynn has continuously denied these allegations, which prompted his pursuit to challenge the protective standard for news organizations.
The Supreme Court's decision was delivered without any accompanying commentary. By opting not to hear Wynn's case, the justices have effectively allowed the lower court's decision to stand, reinforcing the current legal protections news organizations enjoy in defamation suits.
This case has implications that resonate in political realms, given former President Donald Trump's expressed interest in revising existing libel laws. During his presidency, Trump publicly questioned the robustness of current defamation protections and sought reforms.
Furthermore, two Supreme Court Justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have shown some willingness to reconsider these libel standards. Justice Thomas, for instance, has openly stated that he believes the "actual malice" standard should be reassessed.
Despite these individual opinions from some members of the judiciary, it is clear from this decision that there is no consensus among the current justices to alter the Sullivan ruling. For the Court to take up an appeal-like Wynn's, at least four justices must agree to it. As of now, that threshold has not been met.
In 2023, the Court similarly dismissed a related request from Don Blankenship to reconsider the Sullivan precedent. These back-to-back decisions punctuate the judiciary's apparent commitment to maintaining the legal standard that has guided defamation law for decades.
Justice Thomas's commentary on the subject underscores a notable division regarding press protections among the judiciary's ranks.
He has articulated a view that media protections have extended too far, essentially becoming a "subsidy for published falsehoods," and previously called for a review of the "actual malice" requirement.
Neil Gorsuch has also voiced concerns over the evolution of the Sullivan ruling. His remarks suggest an openness to recalibrating the balance between free press rights and protection against false publications for those in the public eye.
The court's recent decisions, including the Wynn case, indicate continuity in the legal landscape regarding defamation. The adherence to precedent reinforces the established jurisprudence that upholds significant First Amendment protections for media entities.
Such outcomes highlight a judicial reticence to alter the delicate balance struck in 1964 when the Sullivan decision was rendered. Its role in safeguarding the press against retaliatory lawsuits has become a cornerstone of American media law.
