An attorney wants a court to reconsider her request to throw out Steve Wynn’s defamation lawsuit.

A California attorney embroiled in litigation with ousted casino owner Steve Wynn wants an appeals court to reconsider her request to throw out his defamation lawsuit, according to court papers filed

Thursday.

After a three-judge panel in the 9th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Wynn, a lawyer for Lisa Bloom and

her firm asked for a full review of her motion to throw out Wynn’s complaint.

Las Vegas attorney Marc Randazza, who represents Bloom, cited seven U.S. Supreme Court decisions that he said contradicted the panel’s ruling last month.

“Defendants have been sentenced to prison on less evidence than the Panel required of Bloom to enjoy the same First Amendment protections provided to every prior defamation defendant,” Randazza wrote. “This cannot stand.”

One of those cases, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, resulted in landmark free speech protections that prohibit public figures from suing for defamation, as long as the authors of the publication do not act with “actual malice.”

Should Bloom’ s request be granted, under what’ s known as an“en

banc” review, at least 11 judges of 29 in the 9th Circuit would decide on the motion to dismiss, which referred to Wynn’s defamation suit as an effort from him to “silence his critics.”

An attorney for Wynn has not responded to phone calls from the Review-journal.

Wynn lodged his complaint in early 2018, seeking $75,000, in response to a news release from the Bloom Firm that purported “a new woman alleging sexual harassment and retaliation against Steve Wynn.” That came months after he stepped down as CEO and chairman of Wynn Resorts Ltd. following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment.

Wynn called accusations that he leered at female performers a false attempt to pressure payments, saying he was legally blind at the time.

“Wynn has demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Bloom Defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the

Press Release,” the 9th Circuit panel wrote in a March 25 unpublished opinion.

Randazza disagreed and has argued that Wynn’s eyesight was not at issue regarding the allegations.

“The Panel’s decision creates a new standard for actual malice that is trivially easy for plaintiffs to meet and will discourage both reporters from publishing allegations against powerful individuals and attorneys from making statements about pending litigation,” Randazza wrote. “The Panel’s decision creates a new requirement that a witness, whether a source for a reporter’s story or a client for an attorney’s statements, must state with absolute certainty that they know their story is true and that they have direct, personal knowledge of truth, or else actual malice can be inferred.”