Steve Wynn's Supreme Court Appeal: A Potential Challenge to Landmark Libel Ruling

Steve Wynn has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the libel protections set in the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision. This pivotal appeal could impact defamation claims by public figures, questioning the 'actual malice' standard required for such cases.

Casino tycoon Steve Wynn has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a review of libel protections granted under a landmark ruling. If accepted, this case presents the justices with an opportunity to reevaluate the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which sets stringent limits on defamation lawsuits by public figures.

The appeal follows Nevada's dismissal of Wynn's defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press, regarding a report alleging sexual assault. The court ruled that Wynn could not demonstrate the article was published maliciously. Wynn's request is for the Supreme Court to reconsider the necessity of proving 'actual malice' in such cases.

Historically, the precedent has required public figures to show that offending statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth. However, with changing media landscapes and increased concerns over misinformation, some argue for a reassessment. Wynn's appeal reflects a potential shift in how defamation laws might adapt to modern media environments.

(With inputs from agencies.)