The allegations against Wynn date back to the 1970s and include serious accusations, such as fathering a child with one woman after allegedly assaulting her.

Wynn subsequently challenged this ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal, thereby upholding the 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling that safeguards press freedom.

Wynn's legal team argued that the current defamation standard is outdated, particularly in a media landscape rife with misinformation.

Steve Wynn, who resigned as CEO of Wynn Resorts in 2018 amid multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, has faced a series of legal challenges related to these claims.

Last year, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Wynn's defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press, citing the state's anti-SLAPP law, which protects free speech.

The Nevada Supreme Court found that Wynn failed to meet the 'actual malice' standard required for public figures to win a libel case.

Wynn's lawyers criticized the Supreme Court's decision, claiming it allows media outlets to publish false stories without accountability.

Legal experts noted that if the Supreme Court had accepted Wynn's case, it could have weakened First Amendment protections for the press.

Despite the ruling, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas has previously indicated a desire to reconsider the Sullivan decision, although he did not dissent in this case.

Under the Sullivan standard, public figures must prove that false statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

The Supreme Court's denial of Wynn's petition was made without comment or dissent, leaving the existing legal protections for the press intact.

The court's decision to not review the case was made following standard procedures, without any additional commentary.