Latest news with #PulitzerPrizeBoard
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
A judge sided with Trump. Behind the scenes, he was lobbying for a nomination.
A Florida state judge was lobbying for a seat on the federal bench. After he sided with the president in a defamation case, Donald Trump gave him one. Ed Artau, now a nominee to be a district court judge in Florida, met with staff in the office of Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott to angle for the nomination less than two weeks after Trump's election last fall, according to a new Senate disclosure obtained by POLITICO. In the midst of his interviews, Artau was part of a panel of judges that ruled in Trump's favor in the president's case against members of the Pulitzer Prize Board. About two weeks after the court published his opinion — which called for the overturning of a landmark Supreme Court case that made it harder for public officials to sue journalists — he interviewed with the White House Counsel's Office. In May, Trump announced his nomination to the federal judiciary. Critics raised concerns about Artau's impartiality at the time of the announcement, in light of his ruling in the Pulitzer case. But the overlapping timeline of that decision with his meetings with Senate staff and the White House Counsel's Office has not previously been reported. Artau did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said Trump had full confidence in his nominee and anticipated Artau's confirmation. 'The standards of the President's judicial nominations are simple: restoring law and order, ending the weaponization of the judicial branch, and interpreting the Constitution as written,' Fields said. 'Ed Artau has demonstrated these principles throughout his esteemed career and will continue to do so as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.' The president has wide latitude to nominate whomever he wishes to the federal bench. But Artau's vehement defense of Trump — while seeking a nomination from his administration — raises ethical questions about his partiality in the Pulitzer case. The administration's decision to nominate Artau after that opinion also reflects a pattern of elevating those who have sought to ingratiate themselves with Trump. 'Coming across as an archpartisan is now perceived as something that can help your cause with President Trump,' Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said in an interview. 'The idea that you would have a judge thinking you know, it's a good idea to go on the warpath in support of the President, is really a new development.' According to his official Senate questionnaire, Artau met with Scott's general counsel on Nov. 14 to discuss his interest in the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) was appointed to the Senate in January to succeed now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Artau contacted her office to indicate interest in the nomination. At some point after that, Artau said he was informed the senators would recommend him. On Feb. 12, the court published his opinion in Trump's favor in the defamation case against the Pulitzer Board, and on Feb. 27, he interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel's Office. Thereafter, he was informed that he was under consideration for the nomination, and on May 27, he met with Trump, according to Artau's answers provided in the questionnaire. Trump announced he would nominate Artau to be a district judge in South Florida the next day, writing in a post on Truth Social that Artau has 'a GREAT track record of restoring LAW AND ORDER and, most importantly, Common Sense.' In the Senate disclosure, Artau affirmed no one involved in the judicial nomination selection process 'discussed with [him] any currently pending or specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning [his] position on such case, issue, or question.' Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment. Moody's office declined to comment. Artau's opinion in the defamation case was unusual, in part because the ruling concerned a largely procedural matter. Trump had sued the Pulitzer Board for defamation after he requested that it rescind the 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian election interference and ties to Trump's orbit. The three-judge panel in Florida, including Artau, allowed the case to proceed. ''FAKE NEWS.' 'The phony Witch Hunt.' And 'a big hoax.' President Donald J. Trump has publicly used these phrases to describe the now-debunked allegations that he colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election,' Artau wrote in his concurring opinion. '[T]he board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the President colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election.' (The Pulitzer Board has stood by its decision to grant them the award.) Yet Artau's opinion also suggested going further, arguing the Supreme Court precedent known as New York Times Company v. Sullivan wrongly applied the First Amendment in its ruling that required a public official to prove 'actual malice' in a defamation case. While maintaining that the President had satisfied the standard in his case against the Pulitzer Board, Artau called for the Supreme Court to revisit the matter — a controversial position that Trump and his lawyers support. Trump has repeatedly sought to punish news outlets who have written critical coverage of him. Among those efforts, he sued CNN for $475 million in a defamation case that alleged the network sought to undermine him politically. In the complaint, his lawyers argued the standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan should not apply where the media 'seeks to participate in the political arena by offering propaganda.' A judge dismissed the case, but Trump's appeal remains pending. More recently, ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos settled with Trump in a defamation lawsuit after Stephanopoulos mischaracterized the outcome of E. Jean Carroll's civil suit against Trump that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her. Moving the federal judiciary to the right was a marquee accomplishment of Trump's first term, during which he installed hundreds of judges on the bench and three Supreme Court justices. In recent months, his political operation has become increasingly critical of judges deemed hostile to his agenda and called for impeaching those who have ruled against him. Artau is currently a judge on the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida, where he has served since he was appointed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2020. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1988.
India Today
29-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Return Pulitzers: Trump attacks NYT, Washington Post after defamation ruling
US President Donald Trump has asserted that The New York Times and The Washington Post must return the Pulitzer Prizes they received for reporting on the FBI's investigation into alleged connections between his 2016 campaign and demand came as he hailed a major win on social media after the Florida Appellate Court on Wednesday rejected the Pulitzer Prize Board's appeal to suspend the ongoing proceedings in a lawsuit filed against it, relating to the reports covered by the two publications about the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential board approached the Fourth District Appellate Court, requesting to pause the proceedings in the lawsuit until the MAGA leader completes his current term, according to Law & Crime News. Earlier, the board had approached a trial court to halt the proceedings in the case. The trial court had also rejected their demand. In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed victory in the case involving what he called an 'illegal and defamatory' award given for 'malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax'. He also asserted that Pulitzer Prizes were given for spreading false information."BREAKING! In a major WIN in our powerful lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding the illegal and defamatory 'Award' of their once highly respected 'Prize', to fake, malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, by the Failing New York Times and the Washington Compost, the Florida Appellate Court viciously rejected the Defendants' corrupt attempt to halt the case," Trump CALL FOR PULITZER TO BE RETURNEDadvertisement"They won a Pulitzer Prize for totally incorrect reporting about the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax. Now they admit it was a SCAM, never happened, and their reporting was totally wrong, in fact, the exact opposite of the TRUTH. They'll have to give back their 'Award'. They were awarded for false reporting, and we can't let that happen in the United States of America. We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN," he a seven-page opinion, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal swiftly dismissed those delaying tactics."They argue a stay of the case will avoid the constitutional conflicts arising from allowing [Trump] to proceed as a plaintiff in a state court civil action on claims that may involve his official conduct as the President,' the court writes. "[W]e deny the petition and affirm the trial court's order," the court noted, Law and Crime July 2022, the Pulitzer Board defended its decision to award the news outlets its 2018 National Reporting prize. Trump then sued the board for defamation in Florida the following December, saying it acted with malice as the "Russian collusion hoax" had been "fully and emphatically debunked" multiple times, The Week InTrending Reel
Epoch Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Florida Appeals Court Rejects Pulitzer Board Bid to Pause Trump's Defamation Case
A Florida appellate court on Wednesday sided with President Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board over awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for stories alleging Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. The
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Trump hails ruling allowing case against Pulitzer board to proceed
President Trump on Wednesday celebrated a ruling from a judge allowing his lawsuit against the Pulitzer Board to proceed. In a decision Wednesday, a Florida judge ruled Trump's defamation lawsuit against the body, which awards the annual Pulitzer Prize recognizing the year's best journalism, can proceed. Trump, after he left office following his first term, sued the board in 2022 in connection with Pulitzers that had been awarded for stories about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The president, in a Truth Social post Wednesday, called the ruling a 'major WIN in our powerful lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding the illegal and defamatory 'Award' of their once highly respected 'Prize,' to fake, malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, by the Failing New York Times and the Washington Compost, the Florida Appellate Court viciously rejected the Defendants' corrupt attempt to halt the case.' 'They were awarded for false reporting, and we can't let that happen in the United States of America,' he continued. 'We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Lawyers for the board had asked the judge in January to pause consideration of the case until after Trump was no longer president. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
29-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump claims win as Florida court rejects Pulitzer Board bid to pause defamation case
President Donald Trump notched a significant legal victory this week in his ongoing effort to strip the New York Times and the Washington Post of their Pulitzer Prizes for reporting on alleged ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia — coverage he claims was false and defamatory. A Florida appellate court on Wednesday rejected the Pulitzer Prize Board's attempt to pause the defamation lawsuit, clearing the way for the case to proceed. The board had argued that allowing the litigation to move forward while Trump is serving in office would raise constitutional concerns, but the court dismissed that claim, saying only the president himself could assert such privileges. Advertisement 4 President Trump scored a legal victory on Wednesday in his ongoing defamation suit against the Pulitzer Board. ASSOCIATED PRESS Trump on Thursday hailed the development as a turning point in his fight against what he called 'fake, malicious stories' about alleged ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia. 'BREAKING! In a major WIN in our powerful lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding the illegal and defamatory 'Award' of their once highly respected 'Prize,' to fake, malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, by the Failing New York Times and the Washington Compost, the Florida Appellate Court viciously rejected the Defendants' corrupt attempt to halt the case,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'They'll have to give back their 'Award.' They were awarded for false reporting, and we can't let that happen in the United States of America.' Advertisement The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida issued a seven-page ruling Wednesday that denied the board's motion to stay proceedings. The board had argued that allowing the case to proceed while Trump serves in office could raise constitutional issues, including concerns under the Supremacy Clause and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. The court flatly rejected that rationale, ruling that such privileges are not transferable to Trump's legal opponents. Advertisement 4 Trump took to Truth Social to hail the court on Thursday morning. AP 'Such privileges are afforded to the President alone, not to his litigation adversaries,' the court wrote. 'Immunities and privileges, by their very nature, inure solely to the benefit of the individual for whom they are intended.' 'Allowing this case to proceed facilitates President Trump's use of state courts as both a sword and a shield — allowing him to seek retribution against anyone he chooses in state court while simultaneously claiming immunity for himself whenever convenient,' the board told The Post in a statement. 'The Pulitzer Board is evaluating next steps and will continue our defense of journalism and First Amendment rights.' Advertisement Trump sued the Pulitzer board in December 2022, accusing it of defaming him when it defended its 2018 decision to award The New York Times and The Washington Post the Pulitzer Prize. 4 Former FBI Director Robert Mueller led an investigation into claims that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in 2016. AP The board praised the outlets for their coverage of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential connections to the Trump campaign — reporting that Trump has long insisted was inaccurate and politically motivated. The coverage fueled years of speculation and investigations, culminating in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe, which found no conclusive evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Despite that, the Pulitzer Board stood by its decision as recently as 2022, calling the reporting 'deeply sourced' and 'relentlessly reported.' A Florida trial court previously ruled that the board's public statement defending the award could qualify as an 'actionable mixed opinion,' clearing the way for Trump's defamation claims to move forward. In its latest appeal, the board cited Trump's own use of presidential immunity in unrelated defamation cases — such as the lawsuit brought by former 'Apprentice' contestant Summer Zervos — to argue that it should likewise be entitled to a stay. But the appellate judges said the comparison was flawed, noting that Trump is the plaintiff in this case, not the defendant. Advertisement 'These cases are not substantially similar,' the court wrote. 'When an officeholder chooses to initiate litigation, courts must assume the officeholder already has weighed the burdens on their official duties.' The judges also dismissed the notion that the court's involvement would interfere with Trump's presidency, pointing out that he voluntarily filed the lawsuit and has not invoked any personal immunity to avoid participating. 4 Mueller found insufficient evidence to conclude that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in the run-up to the 2016 election. Russian President Vladimir Putin is pictured. MIKHAIL METZEL/SPUTNIK/KREMLIN POOL/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 'Whether the pursuit of this litigation is in his best interests, or consistent with the responsibilities of his office, is exclusively within Respondent's purview,' the ruling concluded. Advertisement The decision allows Trump's lawsuit to proceed to discovery, potentially forcing the Pulitzer Board and affiliated media organizations to turn over internal communications related to the controversial award. Trump's legal team has said it plans to seek depositions and documents that could reveal whether the board ignored doubts about the accuracy of the reporting it honored. As the case moves forward, Trump has framed the legal battle as part of his broader campaign against the mainstream media, vowing to hold 'Fake News' outlets accountable. 'We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'So we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!'
