US Supreme Court 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, 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
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
B.C. man lied to steal brothers' A&W franchise, court rules
A man who tried to steal a fast food franchise owned by his two brothers was excoriated by a B.C. Supreme Court judge, who called him 'dishonest, entitled, ungrateful and jealous.' Norman and Bradley Phaneuf sued their brother, Vern Phaneuf, for claiming 50 per cent ownership of A&W restaurants they operated in Maple Ridge and for trying to cut them out of any profits from the restaurants — all because of a paperwork error. 'The consequence of this error, if allowed to stand, is that Vern … would be entitled to receive 100 per cent of the profit which was created by Norman's and Bradley's successful entrepreneurial efforts,' the judge wrote in a decision made on Thursday. The case stems from a holding company the brothers created for several new franchise locations they were planning to open in 2010 thanks to an expansion opportunity offered by A&W. All four brothers were shareholders in the holding company. Norman and Bradley, who ran the restaurants, owned 80 per cent. They offered 10 per cent each to Vern and Terry (now deceased), in non-voting class B shares, as gifts. Vern had done accounting work for the family's previous franchises and Terry had provided loans. When the ownership documents were being amended, Norman and Bradley's shares were mistakenly listed as 'non-participating,' which means they are not entitled to profits from the restaurants, while Terry and Vern's shares were 'participating,' giving them access to dividends and sale proceeds, despite only making up 20 per cent of shares. Vern, a certified public accountant with a Bachelor's degree who works as an investment banker, drew up the paperwork. Norman and Bradley, neither of which had a post-secondary education, told the judge they did not understand or know what the terms 'participating' or 'non-participating' meant. As a result of the error, which was only discovered in 2020, Vern claimed that he and Terry owned 50 per cent each of the holding company that controlled the franchises as part of a 'de facto shareholders' agreement' that would see Norman and Bradley's shares redistributed. The judge rejected the claim as 'irrational and nonsensical.' 'It defies all logic and credulity to believe that Norman and Bradley would invest heavily and work tirelessly in businesses they had no ownership interest in,' Basran wrote, calling Vern's claim 'irrational, self-interested, and a seeming product of his imagination.' 'Vern fabricated this entire 'de facto shareholders' agreement' narrative to try to take advantage of the mistake in the articles of the companies that describes the class A shares as 'non-participating', in an attempt to benefit himself,' Basran wrote. Basran praised the evidence from Norman and Bradley as 'logical, forthright, straightforward, consistent, and coherent.' The judge had far harsher comments for Vern's testimony, noting that he 'lied repeatedly and unrelentingly,' and that 'virtually every element of his evidence lacked truth, clarity, and logic.' The judge pointed out that despite claiming he always knew how the shares were structured, Vern originally denied that he created the shareholder documents. Vern also claimed that his brothers lured him to B.C. from a partnership in a Saskatchewan accounting firm, with an offer of 25 per cent ownership of one of the franchises. The judge pointed out that in reality, Vern received a 50 per cent interest in the franchise and that he had never been a partner in the accounting firm. 'This evidence cannot be reconciled because it is a fiction unsupported by any documents or logic,' the judge wrote. @njgriffiths ngriffiths@ Related B.C. woman sues psychiatrist, says prescribed drug made her gamble away her home equity, shop excessively B.C. court overrules 'biased' will that left $2.9 million to son, $170,000 to daughter
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US budget deficit has widened by $109B from a year ago despite influx of tariff revenue
The U.S. federal government's annual budget deficit has widened by $109 billion so far this fiscal year despite an influx of tariff revenue to the government's coffers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Friday released its monthly budget update for July, which found that the federal budget deficit totaled $1.6 trillion in the first 10 months of fiscal year 2025. That figure is $109 billion higher than it was for the same period in FY2024. Overall, federal tax receipts were up $263 billion, or 6%, while spending outpaced that gain, rising by $372 billion, or 7%, in the first 10 months of FY2025. Much of the rise in federal tax revenue was driven by the Trump administration's tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods that the White House has increased markedly on U.S. trading partners over the course of this year. National Debt Tracker: American Taxpayers (You) Are Now On The Hook For $36,950,459,859,111.56 As Of 8/7/25 The CBO said customs duties collected were up by $70 billion, or 112%, so far in FY2025 compared with the same period in the prior year as a result of the higher tariffs. Read On The Fox Business App Individual income and payroll tax receipts were up $214 billion, or 6%, from a year ago in the first 10 months of this fiscal year. Corporate income taxes are down $27 billion, or 7%, compared with the same 10-month period in FY2024. Ray Dalio Warns Of Looming Fiscal Crisis If Us Doesn't Address Deficit Spending: 'Economic Heart Attack' Federal spending is up $372 billion in the first 10 months of FY2025 compared with last year, much of which is due to higher outlays on mandatory spending programs. Spending on Social Security benefits increased by $102 billion, or 8%, from the same period last year. That increase was due to higher average benefits due to the annual cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) that boosts benefit amounts to account for inflation and the rising number of enrolled beneficiaries as America's population ages. Republicans Defy Fiscal Critics To Push Through Trump's Signature 'Beautiful' Tax Cuts Medicare spending is $58 billion higher in FY2025 so far compared with last year due to a greater number of enrollees and higher payment rates for services. Medicaid spending was up $47 billion from a year ago due to rising costs per enrollee. The cost of servicing America's nearly $37 trillion national debt also increased by $60 billion, or 8%, in the first 10 months of FY2025 compared to the prior year. That's due to the national debt being larger than it was in the same period in FY2024. For the month of July, the deficit amounted to $289 billion, $45 billion more than in July 2024, as spending increased by more than the rise in tax collections. The CBO also noted that the surplus in June 2025 was $27 billion, or $1 billion higher than the initial estimate a month article source: US budget deficit has widened by $109B from a year ago despite influx of tariff revenue
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Apple Still a Smart Investment After Its Surge?
After a sharp 12% rally in just five trading days, the Apple stock is still down nearly 6% year-to-date. The question now is whether Apple's underlying strengths are enough to sustain this momentum and drive its share price higher. Let's take a closer look: From Asia to America: Inside Apple's Shift Amid Tariff Pressure The Trump administration has escalated its push for American technology manufacturing, announcing a plan to impose roughly 100% tariffs on all semiconductor chips imported into the United States. However, tech companies committing to domestic production will be exempt — a significant reprieve for Apple and other electronics manufacturers that have long relied on global supply chains. For years, Apple's assembly lines and component sourcing have been concentrated in China, India, and Vietnam. The administration is unequivocally warning that companies must reshore production or be subjected to steep new trade barriers. The political backdrop is also shifting, with Trump recently increasing tariffs on India — a country where Apple assembles most of the iPhones sold in the U.S. In response, Apple has pledged to dramatically scale up its U.S. presence, committing $600 billion in domestic investment over the next four years. This $100 billion plan builds on an earlier $500 billion commitment made earlier this year. Central to the initiative is a new American Manufacturing Program, aimed at fostering the repatriation of production by Apple's suppliers and partners. Apple anticipates this program will directly result in 20,000 new jobs and indirectly support additional employment throughout its extended supply network. CEO Tim Cook underscored Apple's commitment, stating, 'We're going to keep making investments right here in America, keep hiring in America, and keep building technologies at the heart of our products right here in America because we're a proud American company, and we believe deeply in the promise of this great nation.' Part of Apple's plan is to create a U.S.-based chip supply chain. The company expects to produce more than 19 billion chips in 2025, manufactured across 24 factories in 12 states. This is a strategic move to secure critical components against future trade shocks and aligns with Washington's push for semiconductor independence. Apple plans to expand its U.S. manufacturing effort with companies like Corning, Texas Instruments, and Amkor Technology among others. However, the challenges are considerable. Industry experts warn that large-scale electronics assembly in the U.S. is hindered by higher labor costs, a shortage of skilled manufacturing workers, and the fact that many key suppliers remain in Asia. Fully assembling iPhones in the United States is unlikely in the near term. Instead, Apple will focus on manufacturing high-value components domestically while continuing to assemble final products overseas — a compromise the Trump administration appears to accept for now. Despite the hurdles, Apple's exemption from Trump's reciprocal tariffs — including the newly announced 25% levy on Indian imports — shields the company's most important product line from immediate cost increases. For investors, the shift could mark the beginning of a long-term strategic repositioning, potentially strengthening Apple's political standing in Washington while reshaping its global supply network. Services Shine, iPhones Surge, but Apple's Growth Story Faces New Hurdles Apple's latest quarterly results helped cement the momentum behind its remarkable 12% share price jump over just five trading days, fueled by renewed optimism in the U.S. market. The June quarter showcased a powerful, if complex, performance story. iPhone sales surged more than 13%—their strongest growth in years—as U.S. consumers rushed to buy devices ahead of potential price hikes from looming tariffs. The introduction of a more affordable iPhone earlier this year (the iPhone 16e) added extra fuel to demand. This demand push brought quarterly revenue to $94 billion, up about 10% year-on-year, easily beating Wall Street forecasts. The tariff impact—20% on imports from China—did take a bite out of profitability, but Apple mitigated the hit by accelerating shipments from India. Gross profit margins came in above expectations, and China, a market where sales had been declining, posted a 4% revenue rebound. Beyond hardware, Apple's services segment continued to deliver solid results, growing 13% to $27.4 billion. This arm of the business, covering the App Store, iCloud, paid apps, advertising, and search royalties, has grown fivefold since 2015 and now generates gross margins above 70%, compared to around 30–40% for hardware. Bank of America analysts note that Apple's decision to break out services performance in financial reports helped investors justify paying a higher earnings multiple for the stock. Still, challenges remain. The very factors that bolstered iPhone sales this quarter—tariff fears and aggressive promotions—may not repeat. Growth in services has also moderated after its pandemic-era surge, while regulatory clouds are forming. Apple faces a potential earnings hit if Google's lucrative default-search contract in Safari is altered or removed, as well as pressure to allow alternative payment channels for apps, potentially undercutting App Store revenue. Meanwhile, the company has yet to present a convincing AI strategy that can match rivals like Microsoft and Meta, both of which are already showing tangible AI-driven revenue gains. With a new, slimmer iPhone rumored for September at a higher price point, Apple is clearly looking to support margins and sustain its growth narrative. Whether that is enough to maintain the stock's upward momentum will depend on how well it navigates its regulatory challenges and AI positioning in the months ahead. Sources: Apple, The White House, CNBC, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, ActivTrades This article was originally posted on FX Empire More From FXEMPIRE: Is Apple Still a Smart Investment After Its Surge? Navigating Uncertainty in the Crude Oil Market Eye Outliers Like Synopsys Early with Money Flows EU's Sluggish Economy Faces Moderate Growth Slowdown from US Trade Tensions Identify Winners Like Vistra Early with Money Flows Buy Like Big Money: Toast Sees First Outlier Inflows
