Supreme Court Rejects Wynn’s Bid to Weaken Press Freedom Protections

The Supreme Court has turned down a request from top Republican donor Steve Wynn to roll back crucial defamation safeguards for news outlets established in the 1964 New York Times v Sullivan ruling. Wynn sought to overturn the landmark decision which requires public figures to prove actual malice to win libel cases against media companies. His defeat today upholds a cornerstone of press freedom that has shielded journalists for decades.

Wynn a prominent casino mogul filed the appeal after losing a defamation suit against the Associated Press over a 2018 story on sexual misconduct allegations. He argued the Sullivan ruling’s actual malice standard is outdated in an era of rampant online misinformation. The Court’s refusal to hear his case signals its reluctance to dismantle a precedent that balances free speech with reputational harm.

The Sullivan decision stemmed from a civil rights-era clash when Alabama officials sued the New York Times over an ad criticizing police actions. It set a high bar requiring public figures to show media knowingly lied or recklessly disregarded the truth. Wynn claimed this shield lets outlets publish falsehoods with impunity a view echoed by some conservative justices in past dissents.

Press advocates cheered the outcome arguing a reversal would have chilled reporting on powerful figures and stifled accountability journalism. They note Sullivan protects not just big media but small outlets and citizens who critique those in power. Critics like Wynn counter it leaves public figures defenseless against baseless attacks in today’s digital age.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have openly questioned Sullivan’s modern relevance suggesting it fails to curb reckless falsehoods online. Yet the full Court’s silence today suggests no appetite for revisiting the 60-year-old ruling at least for now. Wynn’s loss keeps the actual malice hurdle intact despite his push to lower it for defamation claims.

The Associated Press story at issue detailed police reports from two women alleging misconduct by Wynn in the 1970s claims he fiercely denies. Nevada courts tossed his suit under state anti-SLAPP laws designed to block frivolous litigation against free speech. His Supreme Court bid aimed to bypass those rulings by targeting Sullivan directly but fell flat.

Progressive voices see the decision as a win for democracy arguing robust press protections are vital to check abuses of power. They worry weakening Sullivan would let wealthy elites like Wynn weaponize lawsuits to silence critics. Conservative critics lament it leaves public figures vulnerable to smear campaigns with little legal recourse.

This ruling lands as President Trump ramps up attacks on media often decrying libel laws as too weak to punish unfavorable coverage. Wynn a Trump ally hoped to reshape those laws but the Court’s rebuff holds the line on press rights. The fight over Sullivan’s future persists with free expression hanging in a delicate balance as debates swirl.