Supreme Court Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Brought Against Steve Wynn

Wynn's NY Times Co. v. Sullivan Challenge Shakes Out: Press Freedoms Unscathed

Steve Wynn's quest to overthrow a 2018 defamation case against the Associated Press (AP) and a Las Vegas journalist was outright denied by the US Supreme Court. By deciding not to consider this case, the justices effectively upheld earlier court rulings, shielding press freedoms from potential harm.

Wynn's legal eagles aimed to undermine the First Amendment safeguards erected by the acclaimed 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which established a formidable bar for validating public figures' defamation claims, necessitating evidence of genuine malice. According to Nevada media law experts, press liberties might have been gravely compromised had Wynn's claim triumphed.

Legal Tussling and Accusations

In February 2025, Wynn's legal heavyweights laid out their case, arguing that various states, including Nevada, integrate the actual malice standard into their anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statutes. These laws shield free speech from spurious lawsuits. Under Nevada's statutes, public figure plaintiffs need to establish actual malice and substantiate their case's validity before diving into pre-trial discovery.

The dispute originated from an AP piece that detailed allegations from two women accusing Wynn of improper conduct. Wynn rebuffed the claims and contended that the article was defamatory. Despite his relentless attempts to counter the report, the courts consistently ruled against him.

Wynn, now 83, vacated the CEO chair of Wynn Resorts in February 2018. He also disposed of his shares and relinquished his gaming license amid a Wall Street Journal expose detailing a "decades-long pattern" of alleged inappropriate behavior. The fallout from the allegations resulted in heightened scrutiny of Wynn and his position in the gaming industry.

7Bit Casino 177% up to 5BTC + 77 Free Spins! Visit SiteWith this Supreme Court decision, the case has reached its conclusion, reinforcing protections for journalists covering public figures. The ruling upholds the stout burden of proof required for defamation claims, assuring the survival of dynamic investigative journalism.

In 2025, Wynn's legal team argued that states like Nevada have integrated the actual malice standard into their anti-SLAPP statutes, aiming to shield free speech from baseless lawsuits.
The defamation case against the Associated Press and a Las Vegas journalist, initiated by Steve Wynn, centered around an article detailing allegations against him, which he disputed as defamatory.
Despite Wynn's efforts to contest the report, the courts repeatedly denied his claims, upholding the integrity of the casino-and-gambling industry's press in Las Vegas.
With the Supreme Court's decision, the casino culture continues to be entertained by robust journalistic practices, ensuring the persistence of investigative journalism in the face of defamation claims.