Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In addition to the actions noted below, the Company and its affiliates are involved in litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, such litigation is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Massachusetts Gaming License Related Actions On September 17, 2014, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission ("MGC") designated Wynn MA the award winner of the Greater Boston (Region A) gaming license (the "Boston area license"). On November 7, 2014, the gaming license became effective. Revere Action On October 16, 2014, the City of Revere, the host community to the unsuccessful bidder for the Boston area license, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 103, and several individuals, filed a complaint against the MGC and its gaming commissioners in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston, Massachusetts (the "Revere Action"). Mohegan Sun ("Mohegan"), the other applicant for the Boston area license, joined the lawsuit and challenged the MGC's award of the Boston area license. On December 3, 2015, the court granted the MGC's motion to dismiss the claims asserted in the Revere Action and the court dismissed all claims except Mohegan's claim alleging procedural error by the MGC in granting the license to Wynn MA. The plaintiffs appealed. After multiple appeals and cross appeals, only two claims remained: (1) individual plaintiffs' claim for violation of the open meeting laws; and (2) Mohegan's claim for procedural error. On July 12, 2019, the Suffolk Superior Court granted the MGC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the open meeting law claim, leaving only Mohegan's procedural claim for procedural error. On August 2, 2019, Mohegan filed a motion to file a second amended complaint, to add new claims related to the MGC's allegedly inadequate 2013 investigation. On October 15, 2019, the court granted Mohegan's motion to amend and allowed it to file a second amended intervenor's complaint. Wynn MA is not a party to and is not named in the Revere Action. Derivative Litigation A number of stockholder derivative actions were filed in state and federal court located in Clark County, Nevada against certain current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and, in some cases, the Company's current and former officers. Each of the complaints alleged, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties in failing to detect, prevent and remedy alleged inappropriate personal conduct by Stephen A. Wynn in the workplace. The actions filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada were consolidated as In re Wynn Resorts, Ltd. Derivative Litigation ("State Derivative Case"). On June 3, 2019, a separate stockholder derivative action was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada alleging substantially similar causes of action as the State Derivative Case with the additional allegation that various of the Company's attorneys committed professional malpractice, and certain current and former executives also breached fiduciary duties and aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties, in connection with the alleged inappropriate personal conduct by Stephen A. Wynn in the workplace. This case was consolidated in September 2019 into the State Derivative Case. On November 27, 2019, the State Derivative Case parties agreed to terms of a settlement agreement. The court approved the settlement agreement on February 12, 2020, and entered a written order approving the settlement on March 10, 2020. Following the Nevada Supreme Court’s dismissal of the only appeal, the settlement agreement became effective and final. Following the dismissal, the Company received net proceeds of $30.2 million, which has been recognized as a reduction of general and administrative expense within the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2020. In 2018, several actions filed in the United States District Court, District of Nevada were consolidated as In re Wynn Resorts, Ltd. Derivative Litigation ("Federal Derivative Case"), which also claim corporate waste and violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. In June 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay pending resolution of the Securities Action (described below). On March 29, 2019, the Court granted the Company's request for a stay. On March 25, 2020, the parties stipulated to dismiss the Federal Derivative Case given the approved settlement in the State Derivative Case. On March 25, 2019, a separate stockholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court, District of Nevada alleging similar causes of action as the Federal Derivative Case with the additional allegation that the Board of Directors improperly refused the stockholder's demand to commence litigation against the officers and directors of the Company. On April 30, 2020, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the claims given the approved settlement in the State Derivative Case. On January 12, 2021, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment of this action and denied the stockholder’s request to vacate the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Federal Derivative Case. On February 11, 2021, the stockholder filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 12, 2021, the parties stipulated to dismiss the appeal. Each of the actions sought to recover for the Company unspecified damages, including restitution and disgorgement of profits, and also sought to recover attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiff. Securities Action On February 20, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018. The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. On April 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on May 27, 2020, with leave to amend. On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 14, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 28, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing certain of plaintiffs' claims, including all claims against Mr. Billings and the individual directors, and allowing other claims to proceed against the Company and several of the Company's current and former executive officers, including Mr. Maddox, Stephen A. Wynn, Kimmarie Sinatra, and Steven Cootey. The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against the claims pleaded against them. These actions are in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Federal Investigation From time to time, the Company receives regulatory inquiries about compliance with anti-money laundering laws. The Company received requests for information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California relating to its anti-money laundering policies and procedures, and in the first half of 2020, received two grand jury subpoenas regarding various transactions at Wynn Las Vegas relating to certain patrons and agents who reside or operate in foreign jurisdictions. The Company continues to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney's Office in its investigation, which remains ongoing. Because no charges or claims have been brought, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the investigation, the extent of the materiality of the outcome, or reasonably estimate the possible range of loss, if any, which could be associated with the resolution of any possible charges or claims that may be brought against the Company.