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 Herald Scotland
43 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon: 'I should have paused gender reforms'
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has become one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent years. While it was passed cross-party in Holyrood, it was blocked by the UK Government because of the implications it had on reserved equality legislation. It aimed to simplify the process for a transgender individual to legally change their gender, removing the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Gender rows have erupted in recent years, culminating in the Supreme Court ruling that the terms "woman", "man" and "sex" related specifically to biological sex. In a new interview with the broadcaster, Ms Sturgeon said: "I didn't, I think, anticipate as much as I should or engage as much as I should on some of the concerns that might then be triggered. Read more: "At the point I knew it was becoming, or felt, it was becoming as polarised, I should have - I say in the book I wonder if I should have - I am going to say it categorically: I should have said 'right, ok, let's pause, let's take a step back because I fervently believe that the rights of women and the interests of trans people are not irreconcilable at all. "I should have taken a step back and said 'how do we achieve this?'. ITV News at Ten presenter Julie Etchingham asks the former first minister: "So you're basically admitting that you should have just paused that legislation?" Ms Sturgeon, clarifies, "paused, yes". She has previously rejected calls to apologise to critics of gender self-I, arguing she "fundamentally and respectfully" disagreed. The Scottish Government lost its legal challenge over the use of a Section 35 order of the Scotland Act from Westminster. It was the first time in history that the veto power had been used to block Scottish legislation. The legislation caused friction with Ms Sturgeon's own party. Ms Sturgeon's candid interview, which will be broadcast on STV on Monday at 7pm, also became tearful as she recalled the memory of her now estranged husband Peter Murrell being arrested for the first time in an SNP finances probe. He was first arrested in April 2023 but was released without charge. However, he was later re-arrested and charged with embezzlement a year later. Ms Sturgeon, and former party treasurer Colin Beattie MSP, were also arrested in 2023 but are no longer under investigation by Police Scotland. She told ITV News she saw her home look like a "murder scene" after a blue forensic tent was erected outside her home. The Glasgow Southside MSP, who is stepping down in May, said: "I don't really have a clear memory of that because I think I'd gone upstairs to get myself ready. "I genuinely don't know whether, the fact that I don't have a clear image of that in my head is because I didn't witness it or that I have kind of somehow blocked it out. Read more: "It wasn't until I got to my mum and dad's that I saw the pictures of my house looking like a murder scene, effectively." The former first minister becomes visibly emotional, wiping away tears during the interview. She added: "I'm sorry, I'm not really... I'm just working out that it's really hard to articulate how I felt that day. "I had this sense of horror and upset and the shame of it all." On her arrest in June 2023, she was asked what it was like to go from a "lauded female first minister to walking into a police station for questioning". She replied: "Horrific. Part of me just closed down." Excerpts of her memoir published so far revealed Ms Sturgeon has never considered her sexuality to be "binary" as she dismissed claims of a 2020 affair with French ambassador to the UK Catherine Colonna. Ms Sturgeon said in the ITV interview that it was "just my view of the world and the way people are". "If you're about to ask me am I making some big revelation? No. Am I putting labels on myself? No. That's how I see the world." Asked whether she could be in a relationship with a woman in the future, she said: "I'm just out of a marriage, so I'm not rushing into a relationship with anyone, anytime soon. I'm enjoying being my own person for a while." She added: 'I'm not contemplating, sort of anything of that nature. I'm just enjoying life.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump's sweeping bill looms large over Democrats and Republicans as they head for recess
Earlier this summer, Republican lawmakers gathered around Donald Trump and applauded as he sat before a desk outside the White House and put his signature on what he calls his 'one, big, beautiful bill'. But there were few claps for Mike Flood this week when the Republican congressman appeared before an auditorium of his Nebraska constituents to extol the tax and spending legislation's benefits – just boos and jeers. 'From where I sit, there's been a lot of misinformation out there about the bill,' Flood said, as the audience – some of whom had been encouraged to attend by local Democrats – howled. 'If you are able to work, and you're able-bodied, you have to work. If you choose not to work, you do not get free healthcare,' Flood later said, diving into the bill's controversial imposition of work requirements for many enrollees of Medicaid, the healthcare program for poor and disabled Americans. The heckling only intensified. Trump's bill is looming large over senators and representative of both parties as they disperse across the country for Congress's August recess. Signed by Trump on the Fourth of July holiday, the sprawling piece of legislation extends lower tax rates enacted during his first term, creates new exemptions aimed at working-class voters, and funds his plans for mass deportations of immigrants. Republicans see it as the epitome of the president's 'promises made, promises kept' mantra, while for Democrats, it presents an opportunity to return from the political wilderness voters banished them to in last year's elections. Central to their pitch is the bill's cuts to Medicaid and other safety net programs, its enactment of tax provisions from which the wealthy are expected to see the most benefit, and its overall price tag, which is expected to rise to $3.4tn over the next 10 years. Democrats also plan to campaign on what the bill does not do. The Republicans who wrote it declined to use the opportunity to extend subsidies for premiums paid by people who receive insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – meaning millions of Americans may find healthcare unaffordable when they expire at the end of the year. 'Between the Medicaid cuts and the ACA cuts, our hospitals are looking at a real phenomenon of people walking into their ERs with no insurance,' the Democratic senator Elissa Slotkin said this week during a town hall in Michigan – a state Trump won last year. 'When you get that letter, when it arrives in your post box, I want you to understand that that increase to your private insurance is because of the cuts that Donald Trump has decided to make just in the past month here, OK. There is a cause and effect.' Republicans, only a handful of whom have held town halls since the recess began, argue that it is Democrats who will be facing tough questions back home for their unanimous rejection of the bill. Voters will be won over by the legislation's tax relief for tips, overtime and interest on American cars, larger deductions for taxpayers aged 65 and up, and expansion of immigration enforcement, the party believes, while Medicaid and Snap will ultimately benefit because the measure, they claim, weeds out 'waste, fraud and abuse' through stricter work requirements and eligibility checks. 'Republicans are putting working-class Americans first. The one big beautiful bill set that image in concrete for the 2026 midterms, putting Republicans on offense and giving voters a clear, commonsense contrast,' the National Republican Congressional Committee said in a memo. The group has named 26 House districts where it believes Republicans can win, while its adversary, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), is targeting 35 seats. The main battle next year will be for control of the House of Representatives, which the GOP controls by a margin that is expected to shrink to just three seats once recently created vacancies are filled. Democrats see reasons to believe their strategy of campaigning against the bill is sound. Recent polls from KFF and Quinnipiac University show that the legislation is unpopular, while Trump is seeing his own approval ratings slump. The GOP is also grappling from the messy fallout caused by Trump supporters' demands for the release of files related to the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Yet some in the party say making their case will be tricky because of how the measure is written. While it mandates the largest cuts in history to Medicaid and to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), those mostly go into effect only after election day next year. 'Mission number one for us as Democrats is to be educating voters on the actual impacts of the bill and continuing to call out the Republicans that if it was so important to make these cuts to Medicaid and other programs that are happening basically in two years, why aren't they doing it now? Why don't they make it now?' said Jane Kleeb, a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the party's leader in Nebraska, where the House seat around Omaha is expected to be the site of a fervid race to replace the retiring Republican Don Bacon. 'We all know the answer, right, because they want to win some of these races in '26.' Brian Jackson, the Democratic party chair in Ingham county, Michigan, said he was not concerned about the bill's timing undermining their case against Tom Barrett, a first-term Republican congressman. In an interview, he described an atmosphere of uncertainty in the swing district created by the looming benefit cuts, Trump's tariffs and his administration's freeze of research funding, which has affected the local Michigan State University. 'The concern goes back to the overall culture of fear and unknown, and that just is horrible for the economy, it's horrible for jobs, the auto industry. So, you know, Medicaid is just one of many symptoms of an out-of-touch Washington and how it impacts people's day-to-day lives,' he said. In California's Kern county, Democrats are gearing up for a campaign against David Valadao, a Republican congressman and resilient opponent whose district has one of the highest rates of Medicaid enrollment in the nation. Though he voted for Trump's bill after giving mixed messages about its cuts to Medicaid, the local Democratic party chair, Christian Romo, warned that their delayed impact could frustrate the party's efforts. 'This is going to devastate this community,' Romo said. But with the provisions not taking effect until after the election, 'will people actually feel the implications of that? No. So will they remember that Valadao voted yes on that bill? You know, it's up in the air, and we'll have to see.' Top congressional Democrats argue that even if the cuts themselves are delayed, voters will feel their disruptions coming. 'Companies are making decisions because they know there's going to be less revenue as a result of a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, the largest Medicaid cut in history of this country,' said Pete Aguilar, the House Democratic caucus chair. 'So, healthcare premiums will rise, that will happen early, insurers will make these decisions as well, and hospitals are going to have to face difficult decisions on what their future looks like.' Christopher Nicholas, a veteran Republican political consultant based in Pennsylvania, where the DCCC is looking to oust four Republicans, warned that Democrats can't count on just the Medicaid cuts to get them back to the majority. 'As America continues to stratify, self-select into separate neighborhoods and communities, you're going to have a lot of those represented by Republicans that don't have as much exposure to the Medicaid program, and you're going to have lots of them represented by Democrats in more urban areas that have more exposure to the Medicaid program,' he said. 'I think Democrats are way out of over their skis, thinking that that alone will get them to the promised land next year.'
Western Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
At least 26 killed seeking aid in Gaza as Netanyahu faces growing criticism
Mr Netanyahu is scheduled to give a press conference for foreign and local media later on Sunday amid international condemnation of his plans. His address will come just before the United Nations Security Council holds an emergency meeting on Israel's plan to take control of Gaza City. Hospital officials said they received bodies from areas where Palestinians were seeking aid, either along food convoy routes or near privately run aid distribution points across Gaza. Humanitarian aid is airdropped to Palestinians over Gaza City (Jehad Alshrafi/AP) The dead include 10 who were killed while waiting for aid trucks close to the newly built Morag corridor which separates the southern cities of Rafah and Khan Younis, said Nasser hospital. A further six people were killed while waiting for aid in northern Gaza near the Zikim crossing, according to the Gaza Health Ministry and the Shifa hospital in Gaza City which received the casualties. In central Gaza, witnesses said they first heard warning shots before the fire was aimed toward crowds of aid seekers trying to reach a food distribution site operated by Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The Associated Press cannot independently confirm who fired the shots. The Awda hospital in the nearby Nuseirat refugee camp said four people were killed by Israeli gunfire. 'First, it was in the air, then they started to fire at the people,' said Sayed Awda, who waited hundreds of metres from the GHF site in the area. Six other aid seekers were killed while trying to reach GHF sites in Khan Younis and Rafah, Nasser hospital said. The US and Israel backed the foundation months ago as an alternative to the UN-run aid system, but its early operations have been marred by deaths and chaos, with aid-seekers coming under gunfire near the routes leading to the sites. Responding to AP inquiries, the GHF media office said: 'There were no incidents at or near our sites today and these incidents appear to be linked to crowds trying to loot aid convoy.' Israel's military also said there were no incidents involving Israeli troops near central Gaza aid sites. Seven people were killed in airstrikes, local hospitals reported — three people near the fishermen's port in Gaza City and four people, two of them children, in a strike that hit a tent in Khan Younis. The Israeli military did not immediately comment on the strikes, but has accused Hamas of operating from civilian areas. Israel's air and ground offensive has displaced most of the population and pushed the territory towards famine. Two more Palestinian children died of malnutrition-related causes on Saturday, bringing the death toll among children in Gaza to 100 since the war began. A total of 117 adults have died of malnutrition-related causes since late June when the ministry started to count this age category, it said. The toll from hunger is not included in the ministry's death toll of 61,400 Palestinians in the war. The ministry, part of the Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals, does not distinguish between fighters or civilians, but says around half of the dead have been women and children. The UN and independent experts consider it the most reliable source on war casualties. Relatives and supporters of Israeli hostages held in Gaza attend a rally demanding their release from Hamas captivity and calling for an end to the war, in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Saturday (Ohad Zwigenberg/AP) The prospect of expanding the war has sparked outrage both internationally and within Israel, where bereaved families and relatives of hostages still held in Gaza urged companies to declare a general strike next week. Tens of thousands of Israelis rallied in Tel Aviv on Saturday night in what local media called one of the largest anti-government protests in recent months. The families and their supporters hope to pressure the government to reverse its decision to take over Gaza City, warning that expanding the war will endanger their loved ones. Of the 251 people abducted when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel on October 7 2023, killing about 1,200, around 50 remain in Gaza, with 20 believed to be alive. Lishay Miran-Lavi, whose husband Omri is among the hostages, also appealed to US President Donald Trump and special envoy Steve Witkoff to halt the war. 'The decision to send the army deeper into Gaza is a danger to my husband, Omri. But we can still stop this disaster,' she said. Also on Sunday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz toured the northern part of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. He said Israel's military would remain in the area's refugee camps at least until the end of the year. Approximately 40,000 Palestinians have been driven from their homes this year in the West Bank's largest displacement since Israel captured the territory in 1967. Israel says the operations are needed to stamp out militancy, as violence by all sides has surged since Hamas's 2023 attack ignited war in Gaza. Mr Katz on Sunday said the number of warnings about attacks against Israelis in the West Bank had decreased by 80% since the operation began in January.
