The Florida Supreme Court has declined to take up a request from the Pulitzer Prize Board to pause a defamation lawsuit brought against it by President Donald Trump.
The highest court in Florida will allow the case to move forward in state court.
Advertisement
In a brief order, the state’s highest court declined to exercise jurisdiction, rejecting the board’s petition to delay the case until after Trump leaves office.
Trump filed the lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board over its 2018 decision to award journalism’s top honor to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Trump has called that coverage false and defamatory, referring to the investigation as a “Russia collusion hoax.”
The lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump resides and where at least one member of the Pulitzer board also lives.
“This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b), Florida Constitution, and the Court having determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the petition for review is denied,” the court wrote.
Advertisement
“No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court,” the court added.
The board had asked both the trial court and the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals to delay the case.
The board argued that allowing it to proceed while Trump remains in office could create constitutional conflicts by enabling a state court to exercise legal authority over a sitting president.
Attorneys for the board also raised concerns that the case could potentially involve questions about Trump’s official acts as president, and argued it should be postponed to avoid any intrusion into the executive branch.
Both lower courts rejected those arguments.
The trial court declined to delay the proceedings, and the appellate court upheld that decision.
The Pulitzer board then turned to the Florida Supreme Court, which has now declined to intervene.
The rulings align with existing legal precedent on presidential immunity. I
n 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones that a sitting president does not have immunity from civil litigation for acts that occurred before taking office and are unrelated to official duties.
That case stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against then-President Bill Clinton.
Citing that precedent, the courts have determined there is no legal barrier preventing Trump from acting as a plaintiff in a civil defamation case while still serving as president.
Mueller’s 2019 report stated that investigators found “insufficient evidence” to establish that Trump or his campaign conspired with the Russian government, though it noted multiple efforts by Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the campaign.
Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
Trump has long maintained that the reporting recognized by the Pulitzer Prize was misleading and damaging to his reputation, and has publicly demanded that the board revoke the awards.
The board has declined to do so, defending the selection.
In his lawsuit, Trump alleges that the Pulitzer board acted with actual malice by upholding the awards in light of later findings from the Mueller investigation and other government reports.
The case now returns to the trial court level in Florida, where proceedings are expected to continue.
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said the ruling confirms the president’s right to seek accountability through the courts.
No trial date has been set, and the case remains in its early stages. However, the Florida Supreme Court’s refusal to delay the matter ensures that the litigation can proceed while Trump remains in office.
The Trump administration thus sees this as a victory in the president’s battle to correct the historical record.
The coordinated effort to smear Trump as a traitor was not based on journalism, but rather on a political agenda spearheaded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
