Wynn v. The Associated Press, 542 P.3d 751

Steve Wynn, a prominent public figure in Nevada, brought a defamation claim against The Associated Press (AP) and reporter Regina Garcia Cano regarding an article reporting new allegations of sexual assault against him from the 1970s.
The AP article was based on redacted citizen complaints obtained from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, following prior national reports and investigations into Wynn's alleged misconduct.
Wynn alleged the AP published the accusations with actual malice, asserting the claims were facially false and improbable.
AP responded with a special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects communications about issues of public concern.
The district court granted the renewed anti-SLAPP motion, finding AP’s article was in good faith and Wynn failed to show a probability of prevailing.
On appeal, the key disputes centered on whether the article addressed an issue of public interest and whether Wynn’s evidence could establish actual malice to survive anti-SLAPP dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether article addressed issue of public interest	Article was not of public interest	Allegations against a major public figure are	Yes, issue concerned public interest due to Wynn's status
		of public concern	and the ongoing investigations and public scrutiny
Whether AP published with knowledge of falsity	Article was facially false/improbable; "crazy" comment showed knowledge of falsity	Belief in veracity, no clear evidence of knowing falsity; efforts to report accurately	No, Wynn did not establish knowledge of falsity or serious doubts by clear and convincing evidence
Standard for public figure under anti-SLAPP’s second prong	Plaintiff need only show minimal merit with prima facie evidence	Plaintiff’s actual malice evidence must meet clear and convincing standard	Plaintiff must show sufficient evidence for a jury to infer actual malice by clear and convincing evidence
Constitutionality of requiring clear and convincing standard at this stage	Such a requirement would violate the right to a jury trial	It properly filters meritless claims; jury only hears cases meeting the threshold	Requirement is constitutional; actual malice is a legal threshold before jury consideration

Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 118 Nev. 706 (Nev. 2002) (Sets actual malice standard for public figure defamation claims—must prove by clear and convincing evidence)
Smith v. Zilverberg, 137 Nev. 65 (Nev. 2021) (Clarifies de novo standard for reviewing anti-SLAPP decisions)
Stark v. Lackey, 136 Nev. 38 (Nev. 2020) (Addresses categories of protected communications under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes)
Shapiro v. Welt, 133 Nev. 35 (Nev. 2017) (Guidelines for distinguishing public and private interest issues under anti-SLAPP)
Coker v. Sassone, 135 Nev. 8 (Nev. 2019) (Procedural standards for anti-SLAPP analysis and motions)