Washington D.C. The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Steve Wynn, effectively ending his challenge to a landmark defamation case. Wynn, a prominent casino mogul and significant donor to former President Trump, had sought to overturn established legal precedent concerning defamation claims made by public figures.
The existing legal standard, established in the landmark *New York Times v. Sullivan* case, requires public figures to prove 'actual malice' when suing for defamation. This means they must demonstrate that the statement in question was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.
Wynn's legal team argued that this standard should be revisited, claiming it provides insufficient protection against false and damaging statements. However, the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the *New York Times v. Sullivan* precedent firmly in place.
The implications of this decision are significant. It reaffirms the high bar that public figures must clear to win defamation lawsuits, safeguarding the freedom of the press to report on matters of public interest without fear of crippling legal challenges. This decision will likely be cited in future defamation cases involving public figures.
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Landmark Defamation Case
The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case brought by Steve Wynn, a casino owner and political donor. This case sought to challenge a long-standing legal precedent regarding defamation law. The court's decision leaves the existing defamation standard in place, meaning public figures face a higher bar to prove they were defamed. This refusal to hear the case effectively ends Wynn's legal challenge.
Source: Read the original article at CBS