President Donald Trump has achieved a significant legal victory in his ongoing defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board. A Florida appellate court on Wednesday ruled in favor of President Trump on a key immunity issue. The ruling rejected the Pulitzer Prize Board’s attempt to temporarily halt proceedings until the conclusion of President Trump’s current term in office. The board had previously made a similar unsuccessful request before the trial court.
In a seven-page opinion, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed the board’s efforts to delay the case. The court stated that the board argued a stay would prevent constitutional conflicts arising from President Trump proceeding as a plaintiff in a state court civil action involving his official conduct as president. However, the appellate court denied the board’s petition and upheld the trial court’s order. The Pulitzer Prize Board had contended that proceeding with the lawsuit during President Trump’s presidency would raise constitutional concerns about a state court exercising “direct control” over him. The board’s motion to stay cited the Supremacy Clause and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution to support their argument.
The appellate court summarized the board’s position as effectively seeking a temporary immunity for President Trump under the Supremacy Clause to stay the civil proceedings, even though President Trump himself had not requested such relief. The board also argued that it would violate due process if President Trump could claim constitutional privilege to stay cases due to his office but they could not.
The judges, however, were not persuaded. Regarding the specific question of constitutional privileges, the court noted that the president possesses even more privileges than the board cited. The appellate court emphasized that these privileges are afforded to the president alone, not to those opposing him in litigation.
Examining the broader concept of governmental immunity, the court explained that other government officials, holding positions of lesser authority than the president, also enjoy similar protections from court proceedings. The court reiterated that only the party holding the privilege has the right to invoke it. The opinion stated clearly that while government officials may claim their provided immunities and protections in court proceedings, the law does not allow third parties to claim these privileges, nor can such privileges be asserted on an official’s behalf by others. Citing the principle of standing, the court noted that one generally cannot assert someone else’s constitutional rights. Immunities and privileges inherently benefit only the individual for whom they are intended. Therefore, the Pulitzer Prize Board, as private citizens, could not assert a governmental immunity.
In its appeal, the Pulitzer Prize Board justified its argument by pointing out that President Trump himself has, on multiple occasions, invoked constitutional protections for the president to attempt to pause civil lawsuits where he was the defendant for conduct unrelated to his official duties. Specifically, the board referenced a lawsuit filed against President Trump by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on The Apprentice, which was later dropped. The appeals court deemed this citation “misplaced,” noting that a New York court in the Zervos case had previously held that President Trump, while serving as president, was not entitled to a stay in a state court defamation action based on alleged actions that occurred before he took office.
In a related argument, the board also suggested that President Trump was essentially barred from objecting to their stay request due to similar arguments he had made in the past, a point distinct from the court itself relying on those prior arguments. Again, the court rejected this reasoning, stating that those cases were not substantially similar to the current case to prevent President Trump from objecting to a stay. The court clarified that the cases cited by the board involved situations where the President was a defendant in an action, unlike the current case where President Trump is the plaintiff pursuing claims he initiated. Therefore, those cases were deemed inapplicable.
The court acknowledged the premise that litigation could cause distractions for an elected official in carrying out their duties. However, it emphasized that in this instance, President Trump is a willing participant in the underlying proceedings and has thus far chosen not to assert any privilege to halt the action. The court stated that even though litigants may be entitled to claim a privilege, they can also voluntarily decide not to.
The opinion further elaborated that when the President willingly participates in litigation, courts do not risk improperly interfering with the essential functions of government. The President, due to his unique position, is best equipped to determine how to allocate his time, assess the demands of a lawsuit, and decide whether it will detract from his official responsibilities. When an officeholder chooses to initiate litigation, the courts must assume that they have already considered the burdens on their official duties. Ultimately, the court concluded that it should focus only on actual burdens raised by the Executive as a plaintiff, not those speculated upon by any defendants. The court affirmed that whether pursuing the litigation is in President Trump’s best interest or consistent with the responsibilities of his office is exclusively within his purview. Consequently, the petition for review was denied.
President Trump filed the defamation lawsuit against the board in December 2022, following several months of legal demands and threats of such action. The lawsuit centers on the 2018 award for National Reporting that was jointly granted to The Washington Post and The New York Times for their coverage of the “Russiagate” scandal. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, some Russian nationals interfered on President Trump’s behalf, leading to a years-long investigation for evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. While special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation ultimately found no evidence of collusion with the Russian Federation, the two media companies received the award for what the Pulitzer Prize Board described as “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” The board further defended its award in a lengthy statement in 2022 in response to President Trump’s threats of litigation, standing by the outlets’ reporting. In July 2024, a Florida judge ruled that the board’s statement was “actionable mixed opinion” and that President Trump’s claims were “properly pled.”
Be First to Comment