Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Landmark Defamation Ruling, Upholding Protections for the Press
The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from casino magnate Steve Wynn, effectively leaving in place the long-standing legal precedent established in the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan. This decision preserves the robust defamation protections afforded to the press, a standard that has faced increasing scrutiny in recent years, particularly from figures like former President Donald Trump and some conservative justices on the Court.
Wynn’s attempt to challenge the Sullivan standard stemmed from his defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press (AP) and one of its journalists. The suit alleged that the AP published false and defamatory information about Wynn, specifically accusing him of sexual assault in the 1970s. These allegations, which Wynn vehemently denies, originated from police complaints obtained by the AP reporter from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Wynn argued that one of the complaints was inherently implausible and contained "clearly fanciful or delusional" allegations, as determined by a Nevada court in a separate proceeding.
However, Nevada’s highest court dismissed Wynn’s defamation suit, citing a state law designed to protect First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech. The court concluded that Wynn had failed to demonstrate that the AP report, which contained the allegations of sexual assault, was published with "actual malice."
The "actual malice" standard, a cornerstone of American defamation law, originates from the Supreme Court’s 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. This precedent dictates that a public figure seeking to win a libel suit must prove that the offending statement was made with either knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false. This high bar for public figures reflects the understanding that robust and uninhibited reporting on matters of public concern is vital to a functioning democracy, even if it occasionally results in factual errors.
Wynn’s appeal to the Supreme Court directly challenged the validity of the Sullivan standard, urging the justices to reconsider its continued application in the modern media landscape. He also questioned whether state laws, like Nevada’s, that enforce the "actual malice" standard at an early stage of legal proceedings infringe upon the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Wynn’s appeal represents a reaffirmation of the Sullivan precedent, at least for the time being. However, the issue is far from settled. In recent years, the Court has been presented with multiple opportunities to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan. A 2021 denial of certiorari in another case drew dissenting opinions from Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, both members of the Court’s conservative majority. They argued that the Court should re-evaluate its defamation precedents, citing the rapidly evolving media environment and the proliferation of disinformation.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed concerns that the Sullivan standard, while intended to protect free speech, may inadvertently shield the dissemination of false and damaging information about public figures. They suggest that the standard may be too lenient in an era where the lines between traditional journalism, opinion-based commentary, and outright falsehoods are increasingly blurred.
Former President Donald Trump has been a vocal critic of American defamation laws, consistently arguing that they are too protective of the news media. Throughout his presidency and since leaving office, Trump has frequently attacked media outlets whose coverage he deemed unfavorable, often labeling reports as "fake news" and referring to the press as "the enemy of the American people." He has also filed defamation lawsuits against news organizations, including a $475 million suit against CNN, alleging that the network’s description of his claims of 2020 election fraud as the "big lie" associated him with Adolf Hitler.
Trump’s lawsuit against CNN was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge in 2023. In a 2022 filing in that case, Trump’s lawyers explicitly urged the court to reconsider the legal standard set in New York Times v. Sullivan, arguing that it potentially "facilitates the pollution of the stream of information about public officials and public affairs with false information."
The debate surrounding New York Times v. Sullivan reflects a broader tension between protecting freedom of the press and safeguarding the reputations of individuals, particularly those in the public eye. Proponents of the Sullivan standard argue that it is essential for ensuring vigorous public debate and holding powerful figures accountable. Critics contend that it may be too difficult for public figures to successfully sue for defamation, even when demonstrably false statements have caused significant harm to their reputations.
The Supreme Court’s decision to decline Wynn’s appeal signals that the Sullivan standard remains the law of the land. However, the ongoing debate and the concerns expressed by some justices suggest that the issue is likely to resurface in the future. As the media landscape continues to evolve, the courts will undoubtedly grapple with the challenge of balancing the fundamental principles of free speech and the need to protect individuals from false and defamatory attacks. The future of defamation law in the United States remains uncertain, and the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent may face further scrutiny in the years to come.
