In a pivotal moment for media rights and First Amendment protections, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that could have dramatically altered the legal standards governing press freedom in the United States. The case, brought by casino magnate and political donor Steve Wynn—an ally of former President Donald Trump—sought to challenge the foundational 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
This landmark decision established a high bar for public figures pursuing libel claims against the press, requiring them to prove “actual malice”—that is, that the false information was published knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. Over the decades, Sullivan has served as a critical safeguard for investigative journalism and robust public discourse, especially concerning powerful individuals and institutions.
A Win for Journalistic Independence
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Wynn’s challenge is being celebrated across the journalistic and civil liberties landscape. Media advocates argue that overturning Sullivan would have opened the door to a flood of libel lawsuits intended to intimidate reporters and silence criticism. By letting the precedent stand, the Court has reinforced the idea that a free and independent press is vital to democratic governance.
“This is a major relief,” said the president of the National Press Club. “The Court’s decision sends a clear message: the First Amendment remains a cornerstone of our democracy.” Legal scholars echoed the sentiment, noting that the stability of libel protections ensures that journalists can continue to investigate and report on matters of public interest without fear of undue legal reprisal.
Context and Political Undertones
Steve Wynn’s case came amid a broader, politically charged climate in which public figures—particularly those associated with former President Trump—have often taken aim at media organizations. Wynn, who has faced his own scrutiny in the press, argued that the Sullivan precedent unjustly shields media outlets from accountability. His legal team hoped the current Court, with its conservative majority, might be amenable to revisiting the decision.
However, by declining to hear the case, the Court has implicitly reaffirmed its commitment to the First Amendment principles embedded in Sullivan. The ruling signals judicial restraint in undermining established precedent, even in an era where skepticism of media institutions runs high among certain political factions.
A Continuing Battle Over Press Freedoms
While advocates for press rights are encouraged by this development, many caution that challenges to media freedom are far from over. The rise of disinformation, attacks on journalism as “fake news,” and attempts to legislate editorial content remain persistent threats.
Nonetheless, the Court’s decision has provided a crucial affirmation of the role of the press in holding the powerful to account. At a time when the credibility and independence of media are under frequent attack, the reaffirmation of Sullivan is not just a legal outcome—it is a symbolic stand for democratic transparency and the public’s right to know.
