Supreme Court Upholds Defamation Protections in Landmark Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Steve Wynn's appeal to overturn defamation protections established in the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. This ruling requires public figures to prove 'actual malice' to win libel suits. This decision upholds a standard crucial for freedom of speech in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined an appeal from casino mogul Steve Wynn, upholding defamation protections linked to the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. This decision, often critiqued by President Donald Trump and conservative justices, retains the 'actual malice' standard needing proof to win libel cases.

Wynn previously sued the Associated Press over allegations of sexual assault published in 2018, claiming the reports were defamatory without due cause. However, Nevada's top court dismissed the suit, stating Wynn failed to demonstrate the coverage was made with 'actual malice,' thus affirming the First Amendment's free speech protection.

The Supreme Court's decision comes amid growing calls to rethink defamation standards in a media landscape susceptible to disinformation. Yet, despite pressure, the Court continues to avoid revisiting the Sullivan ruling. This establishes the difficulty for public figures to secure defamation lawsuit victories while protecting essential journalistic rights.

(With inputs from agencies.)