{"id":14818,"date":"2025-04-07T08:23:46","date_gmt":"2025-04-07T13:23:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=14818"},"modified":"2025-04-07T08:23:47","modified_gmt":"2025-04-07T13:23:47","slug":"former-casino-ceo-petitions-supreme-court-in-a-bid-to-revoke-landmark-defamation-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2025\/04\/07\/former-casino-ceo-petitions-supreme-court-in-a-bid-to-revoke-landmark-defamation-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Former Casino CEO Petitions Supreme Court in a Bid to Revoke Landmark Defamation Case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Mia Shipley, Staff Writer<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Photo courtesy of Unsplash.com<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Former casino mogul Steve Wynn has petitioned the United States Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan<\/em>, a landmark case that raised the bar for public officials to sue media outlets on defamation claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wynn\u2019s 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]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0At 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]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The allegation reported in the AP was found to be false, and in 2020 Wynn was awarded $1 in damages.[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The decision was appealed up to the Nevada Supreme Court, which dismissed the claim under the state’s anti-SLAPP law, or \u201cstrategic lawsuit against public participation.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to prevent cases such as Wynn\u2019s from intimidating critics, like the AP.[5]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The court unanimously agreed that as a public figure, Wynn must show \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d for the court to reasonably conclude that the \u201cpublication was made with actual malice\u201d rather than a publication of a public interest.[6]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The standard for \u201cactual malice” is laid out in\u00a0Sullivan<\/em>\u00a0as knowledge of the statement’s falsity or acting with reckless disregard of whether it was false.[7]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Wynn thus appealed to the United States Supreme Court to review this malice standard.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concept of reviewing\u00a0Sullivan<\/em>\u00a0has 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 \u201cclickbait journalism,\u201d or libelous headlines designed to generate engagement.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sullivan<\/em> 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]<\/sup><\/a> The loss of Sullivan<\/em> would mark a significant alteration of the press\u2019s publication scope. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wynn\u2019s 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<\/em> into case law, or to alter the publication industry to reflect modern concerns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.casino.org\/news\/steve-wynn-asks-supreme-court-to-lower-defamation-threshold\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> 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\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/steve-wynn-associated-press-defamation-lawsuit-nevada-aae0cda55a4fb7dcf1f30d8d63aafd6f<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> 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\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> New York Times Co. v. Sullivan<\/em>, 376 U.S. 254, 262 (1964).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/newrepublic.com\/post\/191313\/donald-trump-ally-supreme-court-overturn-press-protection<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.msnbc.com\/opinion\/msnbc-opinion\/free-speech-supreme-court-sullivan-v-new-york-times-wynn-rcna192110<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s petition originates from a 2018 defamation lawsuit he [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14819,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1631,2788,112],"class_list":["post-14818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-juris-blog","tag-defamation","tag-new-york-times-v-sullivan","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14818","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14818"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14818\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14820,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14818\/revisions\/14820"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14819"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}