Casino mogul Steve Wynn is taking on one of the biggest legal precedents in American media history, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan—the landmark ruling that makes it difficult for public figures to sue for defamation. If he succeeds, it could become much easier for celebrities, politicians, and other high-profile individuals to take legal action against news outlets for false reporting.
Wynn’s petition comes after a 2018 article from The Associated Press (AP) reported on allegations from two women who accused him of rape and coercion in the 1970s. One woman claimed she gave birth in a gas station restroom after being assaulted by Wynn multiple times, while another said she was forced to resign from her job at a Las Vegas casino after refusing his advances.
The claims were never investigated due to the statute of limitations, and Wynn has strongly denied all allegations. However, his defamation lawsuit against the AP was dismissed under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law, which protects media organizations from lawsuits that could stifle free speech. Now, Wynn is challenging the legal standards that allow journalists to report on accusations without facing legal consequences—even when those accusations turn out to be false.
What Happens If the Supreme Court Overturns New York Times v. Sullivan?
Since 1964, New York Times v. Sullivan has set a high bar for public figures suing for defamation. Under this ruling, a public figure must prove that a media outlet not only published false information but did so with “actual malice”—meaning they knowingly lied or recklessly ignored the truth.
If Wynn wins and the Supreme Court overturns Sullivan, it would mark a historic shift in defamation law:
• Public Figures Would Have an Easier Time Suing the Media – Instead of proving “actual malice,” plaintiffs might only need to show that a report was false and harmful.
• More Defamation Lawsuits Against Journalists – News outlets could face an increase in lawsuits from high-profile individuals who claim they were defamed.
• Media Would Be Forced to Fact-Check More Carefully – To avoid legal trouble, journalists and publishers might be more cautious about reporting accusations.
• Critics Fear It Could Weaken Press Freedoms – Some argue that overturning Sullivan could lead to self-censorship, where reporters avoid controversial stories about powerful people out of fear of being sued.
Why Wynn’s Case Matters in Today’s Media LandscapeThe rise of social media and online news has made misinformation more widespread than ever, and some legal experts argue that Sullivan gives the media too much protection. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have previously expressed concerns about the ruling, saying it makes it nearly impossible for public figures to hold the press accountable—even when false stories destroy their reputations.
Justice Thomas has criticized Sullivan as a “policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law,” while Justice Gorsuch has warned that it allows falsehoods to spread unchecked in the modern media landscape.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Wynn’s case and rules in his favor, it could be the most significant change to defamation law in decades, forcing media outlets to be much more cautious when reporting on public figures.
Will Wynn’s Case Change the Future of Journalism?
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take up Wynn’s case, but if it does, the ruling could have massive implications for both public figures and the press.Do you think public figures should have an easier time suing the media for false reports, or would overturning Sullivan threaten press freedoms? Let us know in the comments!
Read the court doc here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-829/341639/20250131173910823_24-%20Petition.pdf
