
US Supreme Court to turns away casino mogul Wynn's bid to challenge NY Times v. Sullivan defamation rule
The justices declined to hear an appeal by Wynn, former CEO of Wynn Resorts (WYNN.O), opens new tab, of a decision by Nevada's top court to dismiss his defamation suit against the Associated Press and one of its journalists under a state law meant to safeguard the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections for freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court in its New York Times v. Sullivan ruling and subsequent decisions set a standard that in order to win a libel suit, a public figure must demonstrate the offending statement was made with "actual malice," meaning with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false.
That standard has since been adopted in a number of state laws across the country, including in Nevada.
Wynn, the former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, filed a defamation lawsuit in 2018 accusing the AP news wire and the journalist of publishing an article falsely alleging he committed sexual assault in the 1970s.
Those claims first appeared in two separate complaints filed with police that an AP reporter obtained from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. One of the complaints, Wynn argued, was implausible on its face. A Nevada court in a separate proceeding found that complaint to have included "clearly fanciful or delusional" allegations.
Wynn has denied the sexual assault allegations.
Nevada's top court found that Wynn failed to show that a disputed 2018 AP report containing allegations of sexual assault had been published with "actual malice."
Wynn in his appeal asked the justices to assess "whether this court should overturn Sullivan's actual-malice standard," as well as a related prior court decision. Wynn also asked the court to assess whether state laws like Nevada's that impose the standard of "actual malice" at a preliminary stage of legal proceedings violate the U.S. Constitution's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
The Supreme Court in recent years has turned away opportunities to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, including a 2021 denial that drew dissents from Thomas and Gorsuch, who are members of the top U.S. judicial body's 6-3 conservative majority.
Citing a rapidly changing media environment increasingly rife with disinformation, Thomas and Gorsuch wrote separately that the court should take a fresh look at its precedents that make it harder for public figures to win defamation cases.
Since launching his first Republican presidential campaign in 2015, Trump has often attacked and even sued media outlets whose coverage he dislikes, and has criticized American defamation laws as too protective of the news media.
Trump for years has been fiercely critical of the news media, sometimes calling reports he does not like "fake news" and referring to the press as "the enemy of the American people." Since beginning his second term as president in January, he has limited the access of some news outlets in coverage of the White House and other parts of the U.S. government such as the Pentagon.
A federal judge in 2023 threw out Trump's $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN in which he had claimed the news network's description of his false claims of 2020 election fraud as the "big lie" associated him with Adolf Hitler. Trump's lawyers, in a 2022 filing in that case, opens new tab, had invited the judge to reconsider the legal standard set in New York Times v. Sullivan.
"The court should reconsider whether Sullivan's standard truly protects the democratic values embodied by the First Amendment, or, instead, facilitates the pollution of the 'stream of information about public officials and public affairs' with false information," Trump's lawyers wrote.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
DC council set for Aug. 1 vote on updated Commanders stadium plan after Trump threatened to block it
The D.C. Council is set to vote Aug. 1 on revised legislation that could allow the Washington Commanders to return to the site of their former home at RFK Stadium, Chairman Phil Mendelson announced Thursday, describing the updated proposal as a win for the city and its residents. The updated plan would support a $3.7 billion redevelopment project featuring a new stadium, 6,000 housing units — including 1,800 designated as affordable — and retail space and parkland across the 174-acre RFK campus. Mendelson's statement comes days after President Donald Trump threatened to block federal support for the stadium project unless the team reverted to its former name, 'Redskins.' He called the 'Commanders' name 'ridiculous.' Under the revised proposal, Mendelson's office estimates, the redevelopment could generate $26.6 billion in tax revenue over 30 years. The District would contribute $1 billion toward the stadium project, while the team would fund the remaining $2.7 billion. 'It's clear that the Commanders showed through their negotiations their commitment to the District,' Mendelson said. 'The process has been extremely productive, and they've been a cooperative partner.' Commanders team president Mark Clouse — whose club opened training camp in Virginia this week — welcomed the Council's timeline. 'We are thrilled the Council will vote to hopefully support this project on August 1,' Clouse said in a statement. 'With today's announcement, the opportunity to bring the team back to its spiritual home and revitalize a critical part of the nation's capital is one step closer.' The Commanders currently play at Northwest Stadium in Landover, Maryland, but aim to open a new venue in 2030. Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, who negotiated the original plan with Commanders owner Josh Harris in April, praised the new framework as 'the most important economic development project in the history of Washington, D.C.' Momentum for the site's redevelopment accelerated after the House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, approved a lease that gave the city control over the long-dormant RFK area. 'It is time to unlock the city's full economic potential,' said Comer's chief of staff, Austin Hacker. 'Congress empowered District leaders with the responsibility to revitalize the long-neglected and deteriorating RFK Memorial Stadium campus in our nation's capital.' The ownership group led by Harris has been considering locations in Washington, Maryland and Virginia since buying the team from Dan Snyder in 2022. The most recent progress came when Congress passed a bill transferring the RFK Stadium land to D.C. that was signed by former President Joe Biden in early January, after lobbying on Capitol Hill by Harris and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell late last year. That paved the way for making it possible to tear down the decaying husk of the old stadium and replace it with a mixed-use development, including the new playing field for the Commanders. ___


Channel 4
12 minutes ago
- Channel 4
Wrestling legend Hulk Hogan dies aged 71
Wrestling legend Hulk Hogan has died of a heart attack in Florida. He was 71. The moustachioed, headscarf-wearing icon, whose real name was Terry Bollea, moved professional wrestling into the mainstream in the 1980s. In recent years he ventured into politics, endorsing Donald Trump at last year's Republican convention The US President was among those paying tribute, saying 'we lost a great friend today'. Producer: Marios Sofos Editor: Saif Aledros


Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Jailed traders mount bid to quash conviction after Supreme Court ruling
Four traders who were jailed for rate-rigging are to appeal their convictions after the Supreme Court quashed similar charges in a landmark case. Jay Merchant, Jonathan Mathew, Philippe Moryoussef and Christian Bittar are all seeking acquittal on appeal, lawyers for the four men said. It follows the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, two former investment bank traders, on charges of rigging Libor and Euribor respectively. The pair were found to have not received a fair trial because of how the jury was directed. The convictions came after an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the aftermath of the financial crisis into claims that traders were manipulating key interest rate benchmarks by submitting false information to the market. Overall, the case led to nine convictions for fraud, with two traders pleading guilty and the rest found guilty by juries. Merchant and Mathew were ex-Barclays traders found guilty of conspiracy to defraud in 2016 after a three-month trial at Southwark Crown Court. The judge ruled that the pair had conspired to manipulate the London interbank offered rate, known as Libor, which was once used to price more than £270tn of financial products globally. Mathew was given a four-year sentence, while Merchant was given a six and a half years. Merchant, who was born in India, renounced his British citizenship and was deported in 2018. Moryoussef, also an ex-Barclays trader, and Christian Bittar, who formerly worked for Deutsche Bank, were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud in relation to the euro interbank offered rate, known in the City as Euribor. Moryoussef was sentenced in 2018 to eight years in jail, with the judge saying: 'Greed was clearly his principal motivation. Although his income was more than generous by anyone's standards, he thought he deserved more.' Bittar was sentenced to five years and four months. On Thursday night, a lawyer representing the group said: 'Following the Supreme Court's landmark decision yesterday to quash the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, all four of our clients now intend to appeal against their convictions.' Mr Hayes, who served five and a half years in prison for fraud, said after the Supreme Court ruling that all those jailed on similar charges to his should have their convictions overturned. The SFO, which was contacted for comment, said earlier this week: 'We have considered this judgment and the full circumstances carefully and determined it would not be in the public interest for us to seek a retrial.'