Supreme Court Declines To Hear Challenge to Landmark Press Freedom Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to take up a case that aimed to challenge a landmark 1964 ruling, which safeguards news outlets from being sued for publishing harmful information about public figures.
The ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan established that plaintiffs must prove “actual malice” to win defamation cases against the press. In recent years, some conservative justices have called for a reevaluation of this precedent.
According to Axios, the Sullivan decision protects media organizations from liability even if they report false information—provided they do not knowingly or recklessly disregard the truth.
Steve Wynn, a casino magnate and prominent supporter of former President Trump, filed a libel lawsuit against the Associated Press in an effort to challenge this long-standing legal principle.
Wynn, who once served as the finance chair for the Republican National Committee, sued the AP in 2018 after it published a report detailing accusations of sexual misconduct against him from the 1970s. After Nevada’s highest court dismissed his lawsuit, Wynn attempted to bring the case to the Supreme Court.
“The actual malice standard … exists to give even more breadth when you’re talking about famous people, people with power in government, or people just with more power in society,” First Amendment expert Kevin Goldberg previously explained to Axios.
“The bar is intentionally high to dissuade people from ever filing these lawsuits,” Goldberg added.
While some conservatives on the court remain interested in overturning Sullivan, the Supreme Court has declined to hear multiple cases that could have reopened the issue. For now, it seems the court lacks enough votes to revisit the matter.
Meanwhile, reports this year have suggested a growing effort by certain groups to pressure some Supreme Court justices into retirement, though these efforts have not been successful.
Justice Samuel Alito recently dismissed speculation about his possible retirement, making it clear that he has no intention of stepping down anytime soon.
“Despite what some people may think, this is a man who has never thought about this job from a political perspective,” a source close to Alito told The Wall Street Journal. “The idea that he’s going to retire for political considerations is not consistent with who he is.”
Similar rumors have also surrounded liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s third-oldest member, who has been open about managing type 1 diabetes. However, sources told the BBC that Sotomayor has no plans to leave the bench.
“This is no time to lose her important voice on the court,” one person told The Wall Street Journal, adding, “She takes better care of herself than anyone I know. She’s in great health, and the court needs her now more than ever.”
Earlier this year, Senator Bernie Sanders acknowledged on NBC’s Meet the Press that he had heard “a little bit” of chatter about Sotomayor potentially stepping down. However, Sanders dismissed the idea, saying calls for her resignation are not “sensible.”
Currently, the three oldest justices on the Supreme Court are all in their 70s, and Trump’s election last week has reignited debate over the court’s future.
With Republicans controlling both the White House and the Senate for at least the next two years, they can fill any Supreme Court vacancies without needing Democratic support.
Some Republicans have suggested it would be strategic for Alito, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006, and Justice Clarence Thomas, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and is now 76, to retire so younger conservative judges can take their places.
Public opinion polls indicate that many Americans view the Supreme Court as politically biased. However, insiders say that justices from across the ideological spectrum prefer to see themselves as independent from partisan politics—and that post-election speculation in Washington is growing tiresome within the court.
During his first term, Trump appointed three justices, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority on the bench.
Alito, in particular, has been influential in shaping the court’s conservative direction. He authored the 2022 opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, a historic ruling from 1973 that had guaranteed women the right to an abortion before fetal viability. Overturning Roe was a long-sought goal for conservatives, and Alito’s opinion helped achieve what many once believed was an impossible objective.
4o