Florida judge sought 'powerful lifetime appointment' before boosting Trump's 'Russiagate' lawsuit against Pulitzer board, ethics complaint alleges

A press advocacy group has filed a complaint alleging that President Donald Trump's standards for judicial fitness for the federal bench begin and end with how useful those judges have been in propping up cases against his perceived enemies.

Law&Crime has covered Trump's lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board and its members for years, from the moment it was filed to the moment that a state appellate court handed the "Russiagate" defamation suit defendants a major loss that stands to this day.

Chief Judge Jeffrey Kuntz of Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal wrote the decision allowing Trump's lawsuit to move forward in February 2025, agreeing that Trump "sufficiently pled that the [18] defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defame him" when the board released a statement backing 2018 Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of the Mueller investigation.

Joining Kuntz in that decision was Judge Ed Artau, who penned a concurrence that said the lower court "correctly denied the non-resident defendants' motion to dismiss the President's claims over the asserted publication of defamatory 'FAKE NEWS.'"

And just like Artau, a complaint filed Tuesday with the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission alleged, Kuntz used the Trump-favorable ruling as a launching pad to a "powerful lifetime appointment" in the Southern District of Florida, the turf of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon and at least five other Trump appointees. Kuntz's confirmation would bring that number to seven, given that Artau joined the federal bench in 2025.

According to the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Kuntz reached out to GOP Sen. Rick Scott in November 2024 to "express his interest in filling an open vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida," after Trump won the election and "while" the Pulitzer defendants' appeal "was pending before his court."

"Kuntz sought a judicial nomination from Trump while simultaneously presiding — without recusal — over a personal defamation lawsuit filed by Trump against the Pulitzer Prize Board for not rescinding a prize it had awarded to news articles he didn't like," the complaint said. "Kuntz issued a ruling favorable to Trump in that case shortly before the Trump White House interviewed him for a federal judicial seat. Kuntz was subsequently nominated by Trump to the federal bench."

The complaint said that the judge "was interviewed by attorneys from the Trump White House Counsel's Office regarding the federal judicial vacancy" a little "over two weeks" after he boosted the president's lawsuit against the Pulitzer board in Elizabeth Alexander, et al. v. President Donald J. Trump.

"The core ethical concern is straightforward: Kuntz presided over a lawsuit brought by the same individual whose approval was necessary to secure the federal judicial appointment Judge Kuntz was actively seeking. He did not recuse himself or did not disclose his conflict to the parties. He ruled in favor of the party from whom he was seeking a substantial personal benefit, overlooking glaring weaknesses in his case," the complaint alleged. "These facts raise serious concerns under the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and warrant a full investigation by this Commission."

When Kuntz was questioned about his decision not to recuse himself in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in late April, he said he didn't have to recuse himself and "had not heard from the White House until after the opinion was final."

Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement that Trump "can't win his [strategic lawsuits against public participation] SLAPP suits on the merits, so he finds ways to corrupt the court system instead — from extracting bribes in exchange for merger approvals to settling litigation with his own agencies to rewarding judges who rule in his favor with lifetime appointments."

"It defies credibility that Judge Kuntz didn't think the Pulitzer Board might want to know that he was applying for a job with Trump — a president infamous for transactionalism and political favoritism — while deciding Trump's lawsuit against them," Stern added. "In any event, the Florida rules don't leave it up to Kuntz's subjective, self-serving discretion — judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety."

Law&Crime reached out to the judge directly by email for comment in light of the complaint's allegations, but no response was immediately forthcoming prior to publication. His written answers to the Senate on questions about his rulings in the Pulitzer case are a matter of public record.

"Once you were assigned the case, did you make the defendants in the case aware that you had taken steps to be considered for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench by the plaintiff in this case?" asked Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

"I disagree with the characterization as I did not hear from the White House until after the conclusion of the case," Kuntz replied.

In the aftermath of Trump's appellate wins, both the plaintiff and the defendants have battled over discovery, potentially dealing with anything from an unredacted version of former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia report, to Trump's tax returns and psychological records, to numerous depositions of media figures.

For instance, Trump filed a notice on Tuesday that Poynter Institute Board of Trustees President and Chairman Neil Brown will sit for a video deposition on May 27.