Casino magnate Steve Wynn took a big swing at overturning a landmark press freedom ruling, but the Supreme Court basically told him, “Thanks, but no thanks.” SCOTUS turned down Wynn’s request to reconsider the “actual malice” standard set in New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 decision that makes it tough for public figures to hold newspapers and journalists liable for defamation.

Nevada’s top court rejected Wynn’s 2018 lawsuit against the Associated Press, which concerned a story the wire service published detailing allegations of sexual misconduct from his past (which he denies). Wynn thought his case offered the perfect opportunity to roll back the defamation protections established under the rule – which essentially requires public figures and public officials to prove journalists knew they were printing lies and did it anyway. His effort is part of a broader attack on the actual malice standard, with some commentators warning that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the standard. 

But here’s the kicker: All this fuss about special protections for the media under the actual malice standard is just a smokescreen. The bid to revisit the Sullivan standard is really about protecting people like politicians and celebrities, who already have access to the media and who don’t actually need protecting. Except in a few limited circumstances, the average private citizen does not have to prove “actual malice” to sue for defamation.

Plus, States are free to create their own rules for defamation cases. New York and New Jersey, for instance, already have laws that say you DO need to prove “actual malice” if the defamation is about a “matter of public concern.” So, even if the Supreme Court decided to shake things up, Wynn’s case would not have impacted the laws in those states. And if the Court were to overrule the actual malice standard, other states could decide to adopt the standard as well. In fact, the actual malice standard was adopted by the Supreme Court from a prior ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court. 

In short, Wynn’s big gamble did not pay off, and the smart money says that “actual malice” is not going away anytime soon.