Following the board’s refusal to revoke a 2018 award to The New York Times and The Washington Post, members of the Pulitzer Prize board have taken their case to the Florida Supreme Court in an attempt to stop President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit.
According to documents released on the Supreme Court website on Tuesday, the board’s attorneys seek the Supreme Court to examine a May 28 ruling by the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal that rejected a motion for a stay of the case.
As is customary, such initial notice does not include the arguments the board will present before the Supreme Court.
However, the issue is a part of a lawsuit that Trump filed in Okeechobee County in 2022, claiming that a statement the Pulitzer board released online defamed him. Following Trump’s request that the board revoke the two newspapers’ joint 2018 award for covering purported Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the statement was released.
According to court records, the Pulitzer board declined to revoke the award decision and instead commissioned two independent evaluations of the Times and Post reports. According to the contested board statement, which was later made public online, the reviews came to the same conclusion: none of the winning entries’ headlines, arguments, or assertions were refuted by information that surfaced after the prizes were awarded.
In February, the complaint against Pulitzer board members and other board members who reside outside of Florida was not dismissed by a panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal. The board members then requested that the litigation be put on hold while Trump is in office.
However, the South Florida appeals court denied the motion in its May 28 ruling, citing the fact that Trump had not requested a postponement of the case.
According to the appeals court ruling, judges do not run the risk of unjustly meddling with the fundamental operations of government when the president is a willing participant. Because of his extraordinary position, the president is in a unique position to decide how best to spend his time, how much attention a lawsuit would demand, and whether or not it will take him away from his official duties. Courts must presume that an officeholder has already considered the demands of their official responsibilities before they decide to file a lawsuit.
In a statement following the decision, a Pulitzer board spokesperson reacted and made reference to Trump’s prior attempts to claim immunity from lawsuits.
According to the statement, permitting this lawsuit to continue enables President Trump to utilize state courts as a sword and a shield, enabling him to use them to exact revenge on whoever he chooses in state court while simultaneously asserting his own immunity whenever it suits him. The Pulitzer board will continue to defend First Amendment rights and journalism while considering the next course of action.
Jim Saunders, Florida News Service
