The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by Steve Wynn in his defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press, effectively ending the case. This decision preserves a Nevada Supreme Court ruling that dismissed Wynn’s claims related to a 2018 article. The article in question reported on two police investigations alleging sexual misconduct by Wynn in the 1970s. One of the accusers claimed she was raped by Wynn and subsequently gave birth in a gas station. Wynn argued that these allegations were implausible, but the courts have consistently ruled against him.
By refusing to take up Wynn’s appeal, the Supreme Court has chosen not to revisit the standards governing defamation cases involving public figures. Current legal precedents, established by cases like The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, require public figures to prove “actual malice” to win a defamation suit. This high threshold intends to protect free speech, especially for news organizations reporting in the public interest.
The case has attracted attention as it could have potentially influenced the legal framework surrounding media reporting of powerful individuals. Wynn’s legal team argued that the existing standards were too restrictive, effectively shielding news outlets from defamation claims even when they publish what Wynn considered to be false and defamatory information.
This most recent development underscores the challenges public figures face when pursuing defamation claims. As noted in a Bloomberg article, the implications of this decision reverberate beyond this individual case, maintaining the barriers designed to protect free press from litigation by those in positions of power.