*

Court asked to revisit stringent defamation standard

*

Trump, two conservative justices have questioned precedent

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, Feb 7 (Reuters) - Casino mogul Steve Wynn

has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal that, if

granted, could give the justices a chance to revisit libel

protections for journalists enshrined in a landmark 1964 ruling

that has been questioned by two conservative justices and

President Donald Trump.

The court established a stringent limit on defamation claims

by public figures more than 60 years ago in its New York Times

v. Sullivan decision involving the U.S. Constitution's First

Amendment protections for freedom of speech and the press.

Wynn, the former CEO of Wynn Resorts ( WYNN ) and former

finance chair of the Republican National Committee, is appealing

a decision by Nevada's top court to dismiss his defamation suit

against the Associated Press and one of its journalists. The

court found Wynn failed to show a disputed 2018 news report

containing allegations of sexual assault had been published with

"actual malice."

The Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan 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 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's petition for appeal, which was made public by the

court on February 4, asks the justices to assess "whether this

court should overturn Sullivan's actual-malice standard," as

well as a related prior court decision.

At least four justices must vote to grant review for the

court to hear an appeal. No date has been set for the justices

to review or vote on whether to take up Wynn's case.

Wynn's defamation lawsuit accused the defendants of

publishing an article falsely alleging he committed sexual

assault in the 1970s. Those claims first appeared in two

separate citizens' complaints that an Associated Press reporter

obtained from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,

including one complaint that Wynn argued was implausible on its

face and that a Nevada court in a separate proceeding found to

have included "clearly fanciful or delusional" allegations.

Wynn has denied the sexual assault allegations.

The Supreme Court in recent years has turned away other

opportunities to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, including a

2021 denial that drew dissents from conservative Justices

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Citing a rapidly changing media environment increasingly

rife with disinformation, Thomas and Gorsuch said in separate

opinions the court should take a fresh look at its precedents

that make it harder for public figures to sue for defamation.

Since launching his first Republican presidential campaign

in 2015, Trump has often attacked and even sued media outlets

whose coverage he dislikes, and has repeatedly criticized U.S.

defamation laws.

A federal judge in 2023 threw out Trump's $475 million

defamation lawsuit against CNN, in which the former president

claimed the network's description of his 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.