Supreme Court Rejects Wynn's Challenge to Libel Protections

Washington D.C. The Supreme Court today rejected an appeal from Steve Wynn, a major Republican donor and former CEO of Wynn Resorts, who sought to weaken libel protections for news organizations. Wynn's case centered on a defamation suit he filed, arguing that the existing legal standard made it too difficult for public figures to win such cases. The court's decision to not hear the case leaves in place the 'actual malice' standard, which requires plaintiffs to prove that a news outlet published false information with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Legal experts say the Supreme Court's decision is a significant victory for press freedom. They argue that weakening libel protections would have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, making news organizations more hesitant to report on powerful individuals and institutions. Wynn's lawyers had argued that the 'actual malice' standard is outdated and too difficult to meet in the modern media landscape.

The case stemmed from news reports about allegations against Wynn. The lower courts had ruled against Wynn, finding that he had not met the high bar required to prove defamation. With the Supreme Court's refusal to take up the case, the lower court rulings stand, and the legal precedent remains unchanged.