US Supreme Court turns away casino mogul Wynn's bid to challenge NY Times v. Sullivan defamation rule
WASHINGTON (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, 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, 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.
(This story has been refiled to remove the extra word 'to' in the headline)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7 minutes ago
2026 races loom at Georgia Republican convention as Trump loyalty dominates
DALTON, Ga. -- Steve Bannon took the stage Friday night at the Georgia Republican Convention to say it's too early to be talking about 2026. 'Don't even think about the midterms,' the Republican strategist told activists. 'Not right now. '26, we'll think about it later. It's backing President Trump right now.' But it didn't work. There was plenty of praise for Donald Trump. And while the party took care of other business like electing officers and adopting a platform, the 2026 races for governor and Senate were already on the minds of many on Friday and Saturday in the northwest Georgia city of Dalton. 'Everybody campaigns as quick as they can,' U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene told The Associated Press Saturday. Lots of other people showed up sounding like candidates. Greene, after passing on a U.S. Senate bid against Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff, laid out a slate of state-level issues on Saturday that will likely fuel speculation that she might run for governor to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. Echoing Trump's signature slogan, Greene told the convention to 'Make Georgia great again, for Georgia.' She called for abolishing the state income tax, infusing 'classical' principles into Georgia's public schools, reopening mental hospitals to take mentally ill people off the streets, and changing Georgia's economic incentive policy to de-emphasize tax breaks for foreign companies and television and moviemakers. 'Now these are state-level issues, but I want you to be talking about them,' Greene said. In her AP interview before the speech, Greene said running for governor is an 'option,' but also said she has a 'wonderful blessing' of serving her northwest Georgia district and exercising influence in Washington. 'Pretty much every single primary poll shows that I am the top leader easily, and that gives me the ability to think about it. But it's a choice. It's my own, that I will talk about with my family.' More likely to run for governor is Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who is expected to announce a bid later this summer. 'I promise you, I'm going to be involved in this upcoming election cycle,' Jones told delegates Friday. Like Greene, Jones is among the Georgia Republicans closest to Trump, and emphasized that 'the circle is small' of prominent Republicans who stood by the president after the 2020 election. Jones also took a veiled shot at state Attorney General Chris Carr, who declared his bid for governor in December and showed up Friday to work the crowd, but did not deliver a speech to the convention. 'Always remember who showed up for you,' Jones said. 'And always remember who delivers on their promises.' Carr told the AP that he didn't speak because he was instead attending a campaign event at a restaurant in Dalton on Friday, emphasizing the importance of building personal relationships. Although Trump targeted him for defeat in the 2022 primary, Carr said he's confident that Republicans will support him, calling himself a 'proud Kemp Republican," and saying he would focus on bread-and-butter issues. 'This state's been built on agriculture, manufacturing, trade, the military, public safety,' Carr said. 'These are the issues that Georgians care about.' The easiest applause line all weekend was pledging to help beat Ossoff. 'Jon Ossoff should not be in office at all," said U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, who is spending heavily on television advertising to support his Senate run. 'Folks, President Trump needs backup, he needs backup in the Senate,' said state Insurance Commissioner John King, who is also running for the Senate. "He's going to need a four-year majority to get the job done. And that starts right here in the state of Georgia.' Former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley, who expressed interest Friday in running for Senate, did not address delegates. But one other potential candidate, U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, did. Collins told delegates that in 2026 it was a priority to defeat Ossoff and replace him with a 'solid conservative.' It's not clear, though, if Collins himself will run. 'We're going to see how this thing plays out,' Collins told the AP. 'I'm not burning to be a senator, but we've got to take this seat back.'
UPI
15 minutes ago
- UPI
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President Says He Has No Desire to Mend Alliance With Musk
A protest in April at the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., during a hearing on the wrongful imprisonment of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the man at the center of a political and legal maelstrom after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, was flown back to the United States on Friday to face charges of transporting undocumented migrants. The stunning move by the Trump administration, after months of fighting any effort to return him, could end the most high-profile court battle over President Trump's authority to rapidly seize and deport immigrants. The decision to pull Mr. Abrego Garcia out of El Salvador and instead put him on trial in an American courtroom could provide an offramp for the Trump administration, which had bitterly opposed court orders requiring the government to take steps to return him after his wrongful removal in March. The 10-page indictment — filed in Federal District Court in Nashville in May and unsealed Friday — might also be an effort to save face: Bringing Mr. Abrego Garcia back to face criminal charges may allow the White House to avoid a broader legal confrontation that was increasingly headed toward questions of whether Trump administration officials should be held in contempt of court. 'Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said at a news conference in Washington. 'He was a smuggler of humans and children and women.' She added, 'This is what American justice looks like.' Two people familiar with the investigation said it made a significant leap forward when an imprisoned man recently came forward offering information about Mr. Abrego Garcia, but there was concern and disagreement among prosecutors about how to proceed. In recent weeks, a supervisor in the federal prosecutor's office in Nashville resigned over how the case was handled, these people said. Ms. Bondi went on to level accusations against Mr. Abrego Garcia that were not included in the indictment, claiming that co-conspirators told investigators he had helped smuggle 'minor children' and gang members during dozens of trips around the country. She linked him to more serious crimes, including murders and the abuse of women — even though he has only been charged in connection with smuggling. She also claimed, without providing evidence, that his seemingly law-abiding life in Maryland as a contractor, father and husband was a cover for a criminal activities spanning nine years. Ms. Bondi, who spearheaded the administration's public relations campaign to discredit him during the court battle, predicted he would be convicted and returned to El Salvador for imprisonment. The attorney general declined to say when the Tennessee investigation into Mr. Abrego Garcia was opened. His indictment was filed more than two weeks ago, on May 21, and unsealed Friday after he arrived in the United States. The deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, said he believed the indictment was likely to render moot the lawsuit brought by Mr. Abrego Garcia's family to force his release from Salvadoran custody. Mr. Abrego Garcia made an initial appearance in federal court in Nashville later Friday, and the government moved to hold him in custody. He was detained in Putnam County jail outside the city and is expected to return to court on June 13. Asked whether he had spoken directly with President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador to take steps to free Mr. Abrego Garcia, Mr. Trump demurred. 'I don't want to say that. But he's returned,' he said, adding: 'And he should have never had to be returned. You take a look at what's happened with him; you take a look at what they found in the grand jury and everywhere else.' Mr. Bukele, who had previously said he would not release Mr. Abrego Garcia, said on social media on Friday, 'We work with the Trump administration, and if they request the return of a gang member to face charges, of course we wouldn't refuse.' Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers said they welcomed their day in court and pointed out that the government's decision to return him to the United States undercut its longstanding efforts to keep him in El Salvador. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along — that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' said Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Mr. Abrego Garcia. 'It's now up to our judicial system to see that Mr. Abrego Garcia receives the due process that the Constitution guarantees to all persons.' Ama Frimpong, the legal director for CASA, an immigrant rights group based in Maryland, described the mixed feelings of Mr. Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura. She 'is of course very happy that her husband is back on U.S. soil, at least as far as we know,' Ms. Frimpong said, 'but of course, under very egregious and horrendous circumstances.' Even though the Trump administration has repeatedly accused Mr. Abrego Garcia of belonging to MS-13 — which has been designated as a terrorist organization — a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in April that the defendant had been deprived of his rights by being wrongly deported. 'The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13,' the panel wrote. 'Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.' Since the start of the case, administration officials have sought to depict Mr. Abrego Garcia, a metal worker who has lived illegally in the United States without criminal charges for years, as a member of MS-13. The charges filed against him on Friday accused him of belonging to the gang and taking part in a conspiracy to 'transport thousands of undocumented aliens' across the United States. In court papers seeking his pretrial detention, prosecutors said Mr. Abrego Garcia had been part of a trafficking conspiracy and had played 'a significant role' in smuggling immigrants, including unaccompanied minors. If convicted, Mr. Abrego Garcia could face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for each person he transported, the papers said, a penalty that would go 'well beyond the remainder of the defendant's life.' Mr. Abrego Garcia had been in Salvadoran custody since March 15, when he was flown, along with scores of other migrants, into the hands of jailers at the so-called Terrorism Confinement Center, a notorious prison known as CECOT. He was later moved to another facility in El Salvador. For nearly three months, his lawyers have been trying every legal strategy to enforce court orders demanding that the Trump administration 'facilitate' his release from El Salvador. From the beginning of the case, officials have acknowledged that Mr. Abrego Garcia was wrongfully expelled to El Salvador in violation of a previous court order that expressly barred him being sent to the country. But the Justice Department, acting on behalf of the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, has not given an inch beyond that admission, saying only that if Mr. Abrego Garcia presented himself at the U.S. border, officials would 'facilitate' his re-entry to the country. Department lawyers have also spent weeks stonewalling an effort by Judge Paula Xinis, who is overseeing the case, to get answers to the question of what the White House has done, and planned to do, to seek Mr. Abrego Garcia's freedom. The administration's serial refusals to respond to inquiries about its own behavior in the case has so annoyed Judge Xinis that this week she allowed Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers to seek penalties against the government. According to the indictment, the case against Mr. Abrego Garcia dated to Nov. 30, 2022, when he was stopped for speeding by the Tennessee Highway Patrol on Interstate 40 East, in Putnam County. Officers determined that the Chevrolet Suburban he was driving had been altered with 'an aftermarket third row of seats designed to carry additional passengers,' the indictment said. It also noted that there were 'nine Hispanic males packed into the S.U.V.' Mr. Abrego Garcia told the officers that he and his passengers had been in St. Louis for the past two weeks doing construction work, according to the indictment. But a subsequent investigation, prosecutors said, revealed that Mr. Abrego Garcia's cellphone and license plate reader data showed that he had been in Texas that morning and nowhere near St. Louis for the past weeks. Moreover, the indictment said, none of the people in the vehicle 'had luggage or even tools consistent with construction work.' Prosecutors said that the traffic stop in Tennessee was not the first time that Mr. Abrego Garcia had engaged in alleged immigrant smuggling, which they said was his 'primary source of income.' They added that he had transported about '50 undocumented aliens' a month across the country for several years. Jazmine Ulloa and Annie Correal contributed reporting.
