Steve Wynn vs. The First Amendment: A Masterclass in Wasting Everyone’s Time
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court gave Steve Wynn’s latest legal stunt a hard pass, refusing to entertain his attempt to bulldoze the First Amendment by challenging New York Times Co. v. Sullivan—the 1964 ruling that’s been holding the line against fragile egos in power for decades.
Background of the Case (a.k.a. Why Are We Even Here?):
Back in 2018, Wynn—former casino boss and Trump BFF—decided it was time to sue the Associated Press for defamation over reporting allegations of sexual misconduct stretching all the way back to the ’70s. Rather than address the content, Wynn went with the classic “I’m the victim here” legal play, insisting the AP had smeared his good name. Spoiler: courts weren’t buying it.
Legal Proceedings (a.k.a. The Obvious Outcome):
Nevada’s Supreme Court wasted no time tossing the case, pointing out—patiently, we assume—that under Sullivan, public figures need to show “actual malice” to win a defamation case. That means the AP had to know it was lying or be recklessly indifferent to the truth. Wynn, shockingly, couldn’t prove that.
Wynn’s Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (a.k.a. The “Hail Mary”):
Not one to take a hint, Wynn marched his bruised ego to the U.S. Supreme Court, whining that the Sullivan standard is outdated and somehow violates his Seventh Amendment rights. He even found a sympathetic ear or two among the Court’s right flank. But trying to gut press protections because you’re mad a news outlet did its job? Bold.
Supreme Court’s Decision (a.k.a. Sit Down, Steve):
The Supreme Court didn’t even bother granting a hearing. Translation: “Nice try, Steve, but no.” Sullivan stands. The First Amendment still matters. And the Court isn’t in the business of rewriting constitutional protections just because a billionaire got his feelings hurt.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
This post is free.
But free doesn’t build the future.
Independent journalism only works when people like you choose to lean in—not just with attention, but with support.
If this work matters to you, today’s a great day to take the leap.
$5 a month. $50 a year.
A small investment in something bigger than all of us.
You don’t need permission to dig deeper. Like all my paying subscribers, jump over to our special Perplexity AI page. Use it. Poke at the edges. Ask bold questions about this specific case and the law or maybe what may be cracks in the system. Curiosity isn’t a side effect—it’s the whole point.