SCOTUS Refuses Steve Wynn’s Bid to Overturn Libel Precedent

• US Supreme Court rejects Steve Wynn’s appeal to overturn current defamation laws
• Wynn wanted to use his 2018 case against the Associated Press to make it easier for public figures to successfully sue for defamation
• Wynn argues that current law is “unfit for the modern era”

Steve Wynn won’t get his day in court. The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a case, appealed by the disgraced former casino mogul, that might have made it easier for public figures to sue news organizations for defamation.

Wynn, the ousted chairman and CEO of Wynn Resorts, had asked the court to use his 2018 lawsuit against the Associated Press to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan. The unanimous 1964 decision has protected journalists from libel lawsuits filed by public figures ever since.

In Wynn’s petition, his attorney wrote that the landmark precedent is “unfit for the modern era.”

“Sullivan is not equipped to handle the world as it is today,” the petition argued. “Media is no longer controlled by companies that employ legions of factcheckers before publishing an article. Instead, everyone in the world has the ability to publish any statement with a few keystrokes. And in this age of clickbait journalism, even those members of the legacy media have resorted to libelous headlines and false reports to generate views.”

According to New York Times v. Sullivan, the standard for public figures to prove defamation is “actual malice.” They must prove that any harmful statements made against them were either published with the knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard for their truth.

The Original Suit

Wynn initially sued AP for reporting on a police statement given by a woman named Hulina Kuta, who alleged that Wynn had engaged in sexual misconduct against her. At that time, Wynn faced several allegations of sexual misconduct toward female Wynn Resorts workers, which he continues to deny and for which he has never been prosecuted.

Kuta’s allegations turned out to be false, and in March 2020, a lower court determined she had defamed Wynn. However, the judge awarded the billionaire only $1 in damages. In September 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected Wynns’s appeal of that decision, citing the state’s anti-SLAPP law.

No Wynn Situation

The highest court in the land denied Wynn’s request without comment.

Thomas didn’t publicly dissent when the high court declined to take up Wynn’s appeal in a brief order.