Attorneys for the Pulitzer Prize Board are before the Florida Supreme Court trying for a delay of a defamation lawsuit Donald Trump filed after it recognized reporting about alleged collusion between his 2026 campaign and Russia.
They want to shelve the dispute at least until Trump leaves office, pointing to a potential conflict should a state court seek to exercise authority over the nation’s top executive. The case is in Florida because Trump and one of the board members live here.
A state trial judge and the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected that argument, ruling there was no need to delay adjudication of the case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that presidents were not immune from lawsuits against themselves while in office.
Trump filed the defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer board, the group that decides who wins Pulitzer prizes, after it bestowed a joint award in 2018 to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on alleged Russian interference in Trump’s first election.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller reported in 2019 that his investigation uncovered insufficient evidence of collusion between the Russians and Trump campaign, “despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” Mueller left unresolved whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.
At trial and before the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals, the Pulitzer board had argued the case should be dismissed or at least halted until Trump leaves office. Trump, who brought the case, argues the case should carry on. Both courts sided with Trump.
“When the president is a willing participant, courts do not risk improperly interfering with the essential functioning of government,” the the 4th DCA concluded.
“The president — by virtue of his exceptional position — is uniquely equipped to determine how to use his time, to assess the attention a lawsuit will require, and to decide whether the lawsuit will divert him from his official business. When an officeholder chooses to initiate litigation, courts must assume the officeholder already has weighed the burdens on their official duties.”
Pulitzer attorneys argue that halting the case would avoid constitutional conflicts they believe could arise from Trump serving as plaintiff in a case that could involve official acts as president.
In a Tuesday filing in the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorneys counter that the high court should decline review because the lower courts “chartered no new territory, the issues are unlikely to recur, and petitioners’ arguments are so obviously wrong.”
“The two courts below resolved Petitioners’ motion to stay the litigation against them on the not-so-novel proposition that a party generally lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of others,” Trump’s St. Petersburg-based lawyers wrote.
“This Court only has jurisdiction to exercise its discretionary review of a district court’s opinion when the court below ‘construes’ a constitutional provision. Since that did not occur in this case, this Court must decline review,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
–Jay Waagmeester, Florida Phoenix
Laurel says
What did Trump say? Oh yeah, “Russia, if you’re listening…”
Didn’t I write that there would be tons of litigation with this guy in office? Yes I did. Who is paying for all his tantrums?
Now he wants to discredit the first African American President. That should make his base happy, right?
Yet another distraction to get your minds off the Epstein files.
He is not your retribution, you are his.
starryid says
Never thought he would win – did you? LOL