How Steve Wynn’s Supreme Court Defamation Challenge Could Reshape Legal Precedents in the Casino Industry

Image: Steve Wynn as he appeared in 2012. (Image: Shutterstock)

Former casino magnate Steve Wynn has taken a bold step, petitioning the United States Supreme Court to reconsider the cornerstone of defamation law established in 1964 – the landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. This ruling set the “actual malice” standard for defamation cases involving public figures. The current standard requires these individuals to prove that statements made about them were either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for their truth to win a lawsuit.

Wynn’s petition seeks to lower this legal hurdle, arguing it unfairly protects individuals from accountability for demonstrably false and damaging statements. He initiated a defamation lawsuit in 2018 against the Associated Press (AP) following a February report detailing a police statement by a woman named Hulina Kuta. Kuta alleged sexual misconduct against Wynn, the former chairman and CEO of Wynn Resorts. It’s important to note that Wynn has consistently denied these allegations, which have never resulted in criminal charges.

The Case Against the Associated Press

Initially, a lower court ruled against Wynn, awarding him a mere $1 in damages. This occurred after a lower court determined that Kuta had defamed Wynn. The Nevada Supreme Court subsequently upheld this decision in September 2024.

Wynn’s legal argument centers on the claim that the AP story was libelous because certain aspects of Kuta’s accusations were so outlandish that professional journalists should have recognized their lack of credibility. He also contended that the news agency failed to include information that would have cast doubt on the accuracy of her account.

The original article detailed Kuta’s false claim that Wynn had raped her in the 1970s and that she gave birth to their daughter in a gas station restroom. Further allegations, revealed in an affidavit provided to Wynn’s lawyers, included claims that Kuta was the inspiration for Picasso’s famous painting, Le Reve (owned by Wynn at the time), and that she accused him of stealing valuable artworks from her. She also made unsubstantiated assertions about their relationship in the 1960s, claiming they had other children but couldn’t recall their names.

This case raises critical questions about the balance between protecting public figures from reputational harm and safeguarding freedom of the press. The current legal standard is designed to allow the media to report on matters of public interest without fear of being unduly hampered by lawsuits from those in the public eye. However, Wynn argues that this standard has become overly protective of false accusations.

Impact on Press Freedom

Glenn Cook, executive editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, voiced concerns about the potential consequences of altering the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. He stated, “Any decision to scale back or unwind the New York Times v. Sullivan decision would be a massive blow to press freedoms and the media’s ability to report on public figures.” This highlights the broader implications of this Supreme Court case for the media landscape.

Understanding Defamation Law

Defamation occurs when someone makes a false statement about another person that harms their reputation. There are two main types: libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation). To win a defamation case, a public figure must prove:

• The statement was false
• The statement was made with actual malice – meaning the person making the statement knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.
• The statement caused harm to their reputation.

The actual malice standard is a high bar, designed to protect robust public discourse. It acknowledges that public figures must tolerate criticism and scrutiny as part of their public life.

The Future of Defamation Law

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could significantly alter the legal landscape surrounding defamation. If the court lowers the actual malice threshold, it could make it easier for public figures to win defamation lawsuits, potentially chilling freedom of the press and discouraging journalists from reporting on matters of public interest. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences for the balance between individual rights and the right to free speech.

Key takeaways:

• The New York Times v. Sullivan ruling established the actual malice standard for defamation cases involving public figures.
• Wynn is seeking to lower this standard, arguing it unfairly protects individuals from accountability for false statements.
• The case raises concerns about the potential impact on press freedom and the media’s ability to report on public figures.

This legal battle underscores the ongoing tension between protecting individuals from reputational harm and ensuring a free and open press.