The Supreme Court’s landmark press freedom ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan is still safe — for now. On Monday, the court declined to review Republican donor Steve Wynn’s petition that asked the justices to overturn the 1964 precedent’s “actual malice” standard, which public figures must meet to bring defamation lawsuits.
The denial of Wynn’s petition was on the court’s routine order list Monday morning. Ahead of the list’s publication, a clue that the court would reject the petition was that The Associated Press (which Wynn, a casino mogul who reportedly donated more than $1 million to groups that supported Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, wanted to sue) waived its right to even respond to it, and the court didn’t request a response, which it sometimes does when at least one justice thinks it’s warranted.
So it wasn’t surprising that the court rejected Wynn’s petition. It takes four justices to grant review. What was less clear heading into Monday was whether any of the justices would dissent from the denial. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — two of the court’s six GOP-appointed justices — have previously questioned the Sullivan precedent, but they didn’t do so on Monday. That doesn’t mean their views have changed or that the precedent will stay on the books forever as challenges to it continue. But Wynn’s rejection is the latest evidence that it isn’t immediately at risk at the high court.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
