The Wiener filter is the solution to what's known as the optimal filtering problem: optimally estimate (with minimum mean squared error) a desired signal $y[n]$ from another signal $x[n]$ which is correlated to $y[n]$ but also corrupted with noise.
Now, if you assume that the desired signal $y[n]$ is a WSS (wide sense stationary) random process, and that $x[n]$ also is WSS, then you can assume that the optimal filter (Wiener filter) which estimates $y[n]$ from input $x[n]$ can be an LTI filter with a fixed impulse response of $w[n]$ (mostly taken to be an FIR system).
Then you can construct a mathematical formulation of the optimal filtering problem, as did @Royi in his anwser, to find out the particular solution; (i.e., the optimal Wiener filter $w[n]$) based on the given statistics of the input $x[n]$ and the desired signal $y[n]$ which is described as:
$$ w_o = R_{xx}^{-1} p_{xy} $$
Where $R_{xx} = \mathcal{E} \{ \bar{x}[n] \bar{x}[n]^{H} \}$ is the $N \times N$ autocorrelation matrix of the $N \times 1$ input signal vector $\bar{x}[n]= [x(n), x(n-1),...,x(n-N+1)]^{H}$ and the vector $p_{xy}$ is the cross-correlation between the input vector $\bar{x}[n]$ and single sample $y[n]$.
These matrices are fixed in time when the signals are WSS, therefore the filter $w_o$ will be fixed in time hence LTI.
In this setting, the LTI assertion is implicitly made during the WSS assumtion of the random processes involved. Otherwise you may not end up with an LTI system which could solve the minimum mean square estimation problem.
Indeed, when the desired response $y[n]$ is not WSS, the Wiener filter becomes a tracking filter, implemented in an adaptive form (such as LMS) which has a time-varying impulse response; an LTI $w[n]$ cannot then be the solution of optimal filtering problem in that case.