Key points:

• The Supreme Court has declined to hear Steve Wynn's challenge to the defamation protections established in 1964.
• Wynn's case aimed to overturn the landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove "actual malice" to win defamation suits.
• Wynn's allegations stemmed from an Associated Press report about sexual misconduct from the 1970s, which he vehemently denies.
• This decision is seen as a reinforcement of the vital protections for press freedom under the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will not entertain a request from billionaire casino magnate Steve Wynn to challenge the longstanding defamation protections codified under its groundbreaking 1964 verdict in New York Times v. Sullivan. This ruling established the "actual malice" standard that mandates public figures must demonstrate that a statement was made knowingly false or with reckless disregard for its truth in order to succeed in defamation litigation.

Wynn's legal struggle commenced following a 2018 report by the Associated Press concerning allegations of sexual misconduct against him, with claims dating back to the 1970s. He subsequently brought his lawsuit against the AP, seeking to shift the legal landscape of press reporting standards, asserting that the Sullivan precedent was "unfit for the modern era." Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's refusal to review his case maintains the current high standard for defamation lawsuits, seen as a protective barrier for press freedom.

Wynn's claims were notably challenged by the Nevada Supreme Court, which determined that he had not met the burden of proving that the AP's report was published with actual malice, thereby dismissing his case. The decision reinforces the judiciary's support for press freedoms amid ongoing discussions about the balance of power between public figures and the media, especially in an evolving digital landscape frequently criticized for the prevalence of misinformation.

The Supreme Court's stance in recent years indicates a broader reluctance among justices to revisit significant constitutional precedents such as New York Times v. Sullivan, despite calls from specific justices, including Clarence Thomas, who contend that it enables unfettered attacks on public figures. However, the dismissal of Wynn’s appeal suggests a reaffirmation of protections afforded to the media under the First Amendment.