
US Supreme Court to turns away casino mogul Wynn's bid to challenge NY Times v. Sullivan defamation rule
WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court turned away on Monday a bid by casino mogul Steve Wynn to roll back defamation protections established in its landmark 1964 ruling in the case New York Times v. Sullivan - a standard that has been questioned by President Donald Trump and two of its own conservative justices.
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


Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Public sector struggling to define what a woman is, trans report finds
Public sector workers and trade unions are widely refusing to accept the Supreme Court's judgment on what a woman is, a think tank has warned. A new study by Policy Exchange shows that dozens of organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors have continued to question the legal meaning of 'a woman', despite the ruling. In April, the court ruled that the term 'woman' refers to a biological female in the Equality Act 2010. The decision means trans women, who were born male, should use men's toilets, changing rooms and other single-sex spaces, contradicting the previous stance of a string of public sector organisations. Policy Exchange's report, the fifth edition of its 'Biology Matters Compendium', compiles examples of organisations refusing to acknowledge the legal force of the court's judgment. These include universities, professional bodies and several trade unions, along with other public bodies. Rosie Duffield, the gender-critical MP who left the Labour Party last year, hailed the report and said it showed that 'radical positions on gender identity have become deeply embedded and it will be the work of years to rectify it'. Ms Duffield wrote in the foreword: 'There should be no illusions that this is over: there will be many more battles to fight before women's sex-based rights are secure.' Lara Brown, the author of the report, said that 'despite progress, our latest edition of the Biology Matters Compendium reveals there is still a great deal of ideological capture in the policy and practice of many public institutions'. 'The defence of sex-based rights does not end with a court ruling. It requires persistent scrutiny, open debate, and the courage to challenge ideological orthodoxy – wherever it may reside. This compendium finds that in this domain, there is still much more to be done.' The report notes that at least seven major trade unions have appeared to question the ruling in recent months. Unison, one of the UK's largest unions, and the University and Colleges Union, which represents academic and support staff in further and higher education institutions, have warned of the judgment's 'harmful implications'. The Fire Brigades' Union has said in response to the ruling that 'the law is not always on the right side of history'. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (Aslef) released a statement on social media saying that it 'recognises the distress and uncertainty that the Supreme Court's ruling about the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 has caused to trans and non-binary communities.' The union declared: 'We have a proud history of championing the rights of our trans and non-binary members and we continue to stand in solidarity with them.' A collection of unions, including Unite, the civil service union PCS, the RMT and the BFAWU, a food industry union, have staged marches against the Supreme Court's decision, with one leading figure declaring that 'the trade union movement will protect and stand with trans people, whether the law cares or not.' Policy Exchange's report also draws attention to professional bodies such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy continuing to describe gender self-identification as 'valid'. After the Supreme Court judgment, a number of public bodies announced plans to change their policies on gender recognition. Within days, the British Transport Police announced that trans women could in future only be strip-searched by male officers. The NHS was also told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the equalities watchdog, to change guidelines that did not fit the newly clarified legal settlement. The Football Association announced that athletes would have to compete in their biological sex categories, going forward. But other bodies were more reluctant to accept the ruling. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union, branded the Supreme Court's decision 'scientifically illiterate'. Meanwhile, the National Police Chiefs' Council said it would 'not rush' to change rules on strip-searching in order to fall in with the court's decision.


NBC News
44 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump says he thinks the government has a ‘very easy case' against Kilmar Abrego Garcia
President Donald Trump on Saturday said that it wasn't his decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, back to the U.S. to face federal charges, saying the 'Department of Justice decided to do it that way, and that's fine.' 'That wasn't my decision,' Trump said of Abrego Garcia's return in a phone call with NBC News on Saturday. 'It should be a very easy case' for federal prosecutors, the president added. Trump added that he did not speak with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Abrego Garcia's return, even though the two men spoke about Abrego Garcia during an April meeting in the Oval Office. His remarks came after Abrego Garcia arrived back in the U.S. on Friday and was charged in an indictment alleging he transported people who were not legally in the country. The indictment came amid a protracted legal battle over whether to bring him back from El Salvador that escalated all the way up to the Supreme Court. Abrego Garcia's family and lawyers have called him a family man, while Trump and his administration have alleged that he is a member of the gang MS-13. The case drew national attention amid the Trump administration's broader push for mass deportations. After Abrego Garcia's deportation, lawyers for the Trump administration said he was deported in an ' administrative error,' as Abrego Garcia had previous legal protection from deportation to El Salvador. Still, the Trump administration did not attempt to bring Abrego Garcia back, even as the Supreme Court ruled that it had to ' facilitate ' his return to the U.S. Democrats, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., had for weeks said that Abrego Garcia was denied due process when he was detained and deported, arguing that he should have been allowed to defend himself from deportation before he was sent to El Salvador. Trump on Saturday called Van Hollen, who went to visit Abrego Garcia in jail in El Salvador in April, a 'loser' for defending the man's right to due process. 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser. They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear,' the president said about Van Hollen. 'He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular. No, he's a total loser, this guy.' On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged that Abrego Garcia 'was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country.' In a statement Friday, Abrego Garcia's lawyer called Bondi's move 'an abuse of power, not justice.'


Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Deadly Russian attack hits eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv
The first wave on Ukraine's second-largest city was a large Russian drone-and-missile attack in the early hours. It killed at least three people and wounded 21 others, according to local officials. I received a report from our team on their visit and meetings in the United States. Defense support for Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, diplomatic prospects, as well as the defense of freedom and countering Russian disinformation. We gave our partners a detailed overview of… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 6, 2025 In the afternoon, Russia dropped aerial bombs on the city centre, killing at least one person and wounding five more, Kharkiv's mayor said. The warring sides also accused each other of trying to sabotage a planned prisoner exchange, nearly a week after Kyiv embarrassed the Kremlin with a surprise drone attack on military airfields deep inside Russia. Saturday's barrage – the latest in near daily widescale attacks on Ukraine – included aerial glide bombs that have become part of a fierce Russian onslaught in the all-out war, which began on February 24 2022. Ukraine's air force said that Russia struck with 215 missiles and drones overnight, and Ukrainian air defences shot down 87 drones and seven missiles. Russian strikes hit a residential building in Kharkiv (AP) Several other areas in Ukraine were also hit, including the regions of Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, and the city of Ternopil, Ukrainian foreign minister Andrii Sybiha said in an X post. 'To put an end to Russia's killing and destruction, more pressure on Moscow is required, as are more steps to strengthen Ukraine,' he said. The Russian defence ministry said its forces carried out a night-time strike on Ukrainian military targets, including ammunition depots, drone assembly workshops, and weaponry repair stations. There was no comment from Moscow on the reports of casualties in Kharkiv. Kharkiv's mayor, Ihor Terekhov, said that the strikes also damaged 18 apartment buildings and 13 private homes. Mr Terekhov said that it was 'the most powerful attack' on the city since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion. At least four people were killed (AP) Kharkiv's regional governor, Oleh Syniehubov, said the morning's attacks saw two districts in the city struck with three missiles, five aerial glide bombs and 48 drones. Among the wounded were two children, a baby boy and a 14-year-old girl, he added. Six people are believed to be trapped under the rubble of an industrial facility in Kharkiv's Kyiv district, The Kharkiv prosecutor's office said in a statement on Telegram. Contact with those trapped was lost and rescue attempts have been ongoing since early afternoon, it said, without naming the facility. On Saturday afternoon, Russian aerial bombs struck Kharkiv again, killing at least one person and wounding five others, the mayor said. Today, rescue and emergency operations continued all day across various regions and cities of our country. Over 400 drones, more than 40 missiles were launched by the Russians. 80 people were injured, and some may still be under the debris. And unfortunately, not everyone in the… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 6, 2025 The morning strikes also wounded two people in the Dnipropetrovsk province further south, according to local governor Serhii Lysak. Meanwhile, Russia's defence ministry said that its forces shot down 36 Ukrainian drones overnight, over the country's south and west, including near the capital. Drone debris wounded two civilians in the suburbs of Moscow, governor Andrei Vorobyov reported. A US-led diplomatic push for a settlement has brought two rounds of direct peace talks between delegations from Russia and Ukraine, though the negotiations delivered no significant breakthroughs. But both sides remain far apart on their terms for an end to the fighting.