The Supreme Court on Monday announced it would not hear a challenge to decades-old First Amendment precedent from casino mogul Steve Wynn.

Mr. Wynn had asked the justices to overturn the 1964 landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, which established a higher standard — “actual malice” — needed to prove defamation or libel against a public figure.

The standard laid out in the Sullivan case requires the higher burden of showing that the speaker acted either with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true.

It’s been a major hurdle that celebrities and politicians are usually unable to meet when complaining they’ve been defamed or libeled.

But the justices did not take up his request and rejected the case, Wynn v Associated Press, without comment.

It would have taken four justices to vote in favor of hearing the appeal for oral arguments to be granted.

Mr. Wynn appealed a lower court ruling against him after he sued the Associated Press, which reported sexual misconduct claims against him dating back to the 1970s.

He has denied the accusations.

Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in the past have suggested the justices should, at some point, revisit the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.