WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to take up a challenge from Steve Wynn, a prominent casino magnate, who was contesting a significant libel judgment concerning a lawsuit against a major news organization.
On Monday, the highest court in the land rejected without comment Wynn’s appeal, which is typical for such decisions. The suit focused on a story that revolved around allegations of sexual misconduct against Wynn that reportedly dated back to the 1970s.
Wynn’s legal team was pushing for the Supreme Court to revisit the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. This pivotal decision established the requirement that public figures in defamation cases must demonstrate that any false statement was made with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth—a principle known as “actual malice.”
Steve Wynn, known for his expansive luxury casino developments, has consistently rejected all accusations of sexual misconduct. These allegations first surfaced publicly in a January 2018 Wall Street Journal article.
Following these reports, Wynn stepped down as CEO of Wynn Resorts. He also made an agreement with Nevada’s gambling authorities to pay a $10 million penalty without admitting to any wrongdoing.
In April 2018, Wynn initiated a defamation lawsuit against a news organization and one of its journalists, accusing them of inadequately describing certain elements of one allegation in their coverage, which could have cast doubt on its validity. The accusation was later deemed baseless by a judge in a related civil lawsuit.
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Wynn’s lawsuit, concluding that the news outlet had acted in good faith to provide information on a public interest issue.
Justice Ron Parraguirre of the Nevada Supreme Court emphasized the “actual malice” standard and determined that Wynn, as a public figure, had not provided sufficient evidence to meet this criterion.