By Mia Shipley, Staff Writer
Former casino mogul Steve Wynn has petitioned the United States Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case that raised the bar for public officials to sue media outlets on defamation claims.
Wynn’s petition originates from a 2018 defamation lawsuit he brought against the Associated Press (AP). That year, the AP reported on a police statement given by a woman who alleged sexual misconduct against Wynn.[1] At the time of the article’s publication, Wynn faced sexual misconduct allegations by several of his female employees, none of which have resulted in lawsuits.[2]
The allegation reported in the AP was found to be false, and in 2020 Wynn was awarded $1 in damages.[3] The decision was appealed up to the Nevada Supreme Court, which dismissed the claim under the state’s anti-SLAPP law, or “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”[4] Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to prevent cases such as Wynn’s from intimidating critics, like the AP.[5] The court unanimously agreed that as a public figure, Wynn must show “clear and convincing evidence” for the court to reasonably conclude that the “publication was made with actual malice” rather than a publication of a public interest.[6] The standard for “actual malice” is laid out in Sullivan as knowledge of the statement’s falsity or acting with reckless disregard of whether it was false.[7] Wynn thus appealed to the United States Supreme Court to review this malice standard.
The concept of reviewing Sullivan has been intermittently revisited since the beginning of the digital news age. In his petition, Wynn argued that media has become fast-tracked so that fact-checking is more loosely applied in favor of “clickbait journalism,” or libelous headlines designed to generate engagement.[8]
Sullivan and its malice standard established a protection of the free speech principle in the First Amendment, which allows journalists to promote debate and commentary on the government and public affairs.[9] The loss of Sullivan would mark a significant alteration of the press’s publication scope.
When considering the public figure, the removal of the malice standard could open the floodgates for litigation. On the other hand, it may expand recoverability for public figures who were harmed by false information that was published without malice, like Wynn.
However, when viewing the side of the publisher, the overturning of Sullivan could mean a change in how Americans understand their news. The malice standard both holds publishers accountable for their false publications and protects them for publishing important facts.
Wynn’s petition for a writ of certiorari has yet to be decided, but the Court now has the opportunity to cement New York Times Co. v. Sullivan into case law, or to alter the publication industry to reflect modern concerns.
[1] https://www.casino.org/news/steve-wynn-asks-supreme-court-to-lower-defamation-threshold/.
[2] Id.
[3] https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2024/nevada-high-court-ends-casino-mogul-steve-wynns-defamation-suit-against-the-associated-press/.
[4] https://apnews.com/article/steve-wynn-associated-press-defamation-lawsuit-nevada-aae0cda55a4fb7dcf1f30d8d63aafd6f.
[5] https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2024/nevada-high-court-ends-casino-mogul-steve-wynns-defamation-suit-against-the-associated-press/.
[6] Id.
[7] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 262 (1964).
[8] https://newrepublic.com/post/191313/donald-trump-ally-supreme-court-overturn-press-protection.
[9] https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/free-speech-supreme-court-sullivan-v-new-york-times-wynn-rcna192110.