Special Poll
On Monday, the Supreme Court chose not to review a case that could have challenged the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision. This precedent establishes that news outlets are protected from litigation when publishing critical information about public figures unless “actual malice” can be proven, meaning the outlet published false information knowingly and recklessly.
This decision is pivotal as some conservative justices have previously indicated a desire to reconsider this standard which significantly shields the press from defamation lawsuits. The case in question involved casino mogul and President Trump donor Steve Wynn, who sued the Associated Press following a 2018 report detailing sexual misconduct allegations from the 1970s against him. After the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed his lawsuit, Wynn appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The “actual malice” standard is particularly crucial as it allows a broader leeway in discussing public figures, aiming to prevent powerful individuals from using libel laws to silence criticism. First Amendment expert Kevin Goldberg highlighted that this high bar is intentional, deterring frivolous lawsuits against the media.
Despite ongoing interest from some members of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing to overturn this standard, the court has consistently declined cases that might allow it to do so, suggesting a lack of sufficient votes to readdress this issue currently.
Looking forward, President Trump has expressed intentions to modify libel laws to make it easier to pursue legal action against the press. This year, several media outlets are also facing defamation lawsuits, which could have implications for how these laws are applied in the future.