Supreme Court rejects casino owner Steve Wynn's bid to reconsider US defamation laws

David Danzis, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Mar 24, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid from former Las Vegas casino mogul Steve Wynn to consider hearing arguments against a long-standing legal precedent that affords media organizations broad protections from libel lawsuits.

On Monday, the court denied Wynn’s petition to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark 1964 ruling that established the benchmark for defamation cases in the country, as part of his ongoing legal battle with The Associated Press.

The court did not include comment with its denial.

Wynn, 83, is appealing the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a lower court’s dismissal of a civil suit against the media outlet and reporter Regina Garcia Cano, which the former casino developer filed in response to a 2018 AP story about two women who alleged Wynn committed sexual misconduct in the 1970s.

Wynn has denied the allegations.

In a statement Monday, Wynn’s attorneys said they “regret” the court’s decision but remain steadfast in their assertion that the “merits and facts of this case are clear and compelling.”

“While the Associated Press and its reporter Regina Garcia Cano may claim victory, it is the American people who have lost today,” a statement from Wynn’s legal counsel said. “The fact that media outlets are free to publish demonstrably false stories turns the 1st Amendment on its head.”

Following the Nevada Supreme Court decision in September, the AP said it was “very pleased” and would seek reimbursement for legal costs through a lower court.

Wynn and his legal team had been aiming to overturn key elements of Times v. Sullivan, which concluded that there must be evidence of “actual malice” for a public figure to pursue a defamation claim.

In Nevada, the court found that Wynn failed to present “clear and convincing evidence to reasonably infer that the publication was made with actual malice,” which led to his suit being dismissed.

In arguing for the Supreme Court to reconsider, Wynn’s lawyers said the “actual malice” framework should be “abandoned altogether.”

“Journalism has become a ‘privileged profession’ under the Sullivan regime,” Wynn’s legal counsel wrote. “No legitimate constitutional interest is served by absolving journalists from professional misconduct.”

_____