Judiciary
Florida judge discussed federal judgeship before ruling for Trump, getting nominated, articles report
Judge Ed Artau of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida was nominated for a federal judgeship after serving on a panel that refused to toss a defamation case filed by President Donald Trump. (Photo from the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida)
A Florida appeals judge was nominated for a federal judgeship after serving on a panel that refused to toss a defamation case filed by President Donald Trump.
Politico and Bloomberg Law allege that Judge Ed Artau of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida was discussing his desire for a nomination before his concurrence in the case and the nomination that followed.
“A Florida state judge was lobbying for a seat on the federal bench,” alleged Politico, which broke the news. “After he sided with the president in a defamation case, Donald Trump gave him one.”
Artau’s concurrence cited Trump’s “fake news” claim and suggested overruling U.S. Supreme Court precedent that makes it more difficult for public figures to sue for defamation.
The stories are based on Artau’s Senate Judiciary Questionnaire made public by Accountable.US, a progressive group. The online links to the questionnaire published by Accountable.US, Bloomberg Law and Politico no longer work.
The articles have the timeline.
Artau met the general counsel for Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida in November 2024 to discuss his interest in the federal appointment, the articles report. On Feb. 12, Artau concurred in a panel decision allowing Trump’s lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board to continue. Artau met with the White House counsel’s office Feb. 27, and he was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May.
Artau said in his Senate disclosure that no one involved in the selection process discussed pending cases or legal issues with him in a way that could be interpreted as seeking assurances about his position.
Trump sued Pulitzer Prize Board members after they rejected his request to rescind the award that it gave to the New York Times and the Washington Post for reporting on alleged Russian election interference in the 2016 presidential election. The board said it conducted reviews finding that no assertions in the winning submissions were discredited after the prize was awarded.
Trump sued for defamation and conspiracy. Board members sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction because only one board member lived in Florida. The appeals court allowed the suit to continue, finding sufficient contacts with the state.
Artau’s concurrence agreed that the Florida courts had jurisdiction. But he said the merits of Trump’s claims are crucial to the analysis.
The board’s statement is actionable as fact, rather than opinion, he said. Artau also said the statement constitutes defamation by implication because, as the suit asserted, the statement falsely implied that the newspaper reports were true, even though they “reported the individual components of the Russia collusion hoax all wrong,” and the reports were “exposed as utter fiction.”
“In other words,” Artau wrote, “the 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.”
Artau also said the Supreme Court should revisit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which required actual malice for defamation suits against public officials.
Artau is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and once worked as an associate at Proskauer Rose, according to his online bio. He is the son of Cuban immigrants, the Miami Herald reports.
Artau did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email requesting comment sent to an address listed by the Florida Bar. The Florida courts did not immediately respond to the Journal’s request to speak with Artau.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
