A judge sided with Trump. Behind the scenes, he was lobbying for a nomination.
On Feb. 12, the court published his opinion in Trump's favor in the defamation case against the Pulitzer Board, and on Feb. 27, he interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel's Office.
Thereafter, he was informed that he was under consideration for the nomination, and on May 27, he met with Trump, according to Artau's answers provided in the questionnaire. Trump announced he would nominate Artau to be a district judge in South Florida the next day, writing in a post on Truth Social that Artau has 'a GREAT track record of restoring LAW AND ORDER and, most importantly, Common Sense.'
In the Senate disclosure, Artau affirmed no one involved in the judicial nomination selection process 'discussed with [him] any currently pending or specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning [his] position on such case, issue, or question.'
Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment. Moody's office declined to comment.
Artau's opinion in the defamation case was unusual, in part because the ruling concerned a largely procedural matter. Trump had sued the Pulitzer Board for defamation after he requested that it rescind the 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian election interference and ties to Trump's orbit. The three-judge panel in Florida, including Artau, allowed the case to proceed.
''FAKE NEWS.' 'The phony Witch Hunt.' And 'a big hoax.' President Donald J. Trump has publicly used these phrases to describe the now-debunked allegations that he colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election,' Artau wrote in his concurring opinion. '[T]he 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.' (The Pulitzer Board has stood by its decision to grant them the award.)
Yet Artau's opinion also suggested going further, arguing the Supreme Court precedent known as New York Times Company v. Sullivan wrongly applied the First Amendment in its ruling that required a public official to prove 'actual malice' in a defamation case. While maintaining that the President had satisfied the standard in his case against the Pulitzer Board, Artau called for the Supreme Court to revisit the matter — a controversial position that Trump and his lawyers support.
Trump has repeatedly sought to punish news outlets who have written critical coverage of him. Among those efforts, he sued CNN for $475 million in a defamation case that alleged the network sought to undermine him politically. In the complaint, his lawyers argued the standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan should not apply where the media 'seeks to participate in the political arena by offering propaganda.' A judge dismissed the case, but Trump's appeal remains pending.
More recently, ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos settled with Trump in a defamation lawsuit after Stephanopoulos mischaracterized the outcome of E. Jean Carroll's civil suit against Trump that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.
Moving the federal judiciary to the right was a marquee accomplishment of Trump's first term, during which he installed hundreds of judges on the bench and three Supreme Court justices. In recent months, his political operation has become increasingly critical of judges deemed hostile to his agenda and called for impeaching those who have ruled against him.
Artau is currently a judge on the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida, where he has served since he was appointed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2020. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1988.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
See where Trump's approval rating stands after massive immigration protests
CNN's Chief Data Analyst Harry Enten breaks down a new poll showing how Americans feel about President Donald Trump's handling of ICE raids and the Los Angeles immigration protests.
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
RFK Jr. goes after immigrants to cut health insurance costs
The Trump administration is tightening eligibility for Obamacare coverage in what it says is a bid to combat a 'surge of improper enrollments' and to lower insurance costs broadly. Critics say the rule changes will cause eligible people to miss out on a chance at subsidized health insurance and increase the uninsured rate. 'With this rule, we're lowering marketplace premiums, expanding coverage for families, and ensuring that illegal aliens do not receive taxpayer-funded health insurance,' HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a press release that projects $12 billion in savings from the rule changes next year. Those changes include reducing the enrollment period for plans by two weeks, adding paperwork requirements for some enrollees, ending the use of federal subsidies to help cover the cost of transgender people's transition-related medical care, and barring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients from purchasing insurance on the exchanges. Those are immigrants brought to the country without documentation when they were children whom President Barack Obama protected from deportation. The final rule also repeals a special enrollment period for individuals in households earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level. CMS estimates about 725,000 to 1.8 million people will lose coverage as a result of the final rule. In January, CMS said about 24 million people had signed up for Obamacare coverage for 2025. Many of those will lose coverage because enrollment will be less consumer-friendly, said Larry Levitt, who advised President Bill Clinton on health policy and is now executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health care think tank. 'I think the combination of the shorter open enrollment period and the more complex income verification rules will result in more people falling through the cracks,' Levitt said. Levitt noted that many policies in the final rule are effective only for the 2026 plan year, but that could change if Congress codifies them. The House last month included some of the changes in its version of President Donald Trump's megabill. The Senate hasn't yet voted on its version of the bill, which aims to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts but needs budget savings to do it. The final rule shortens the annual open enrollment period from Nov. 1 to Dec. 31. The previous enrollment period ran from Nov. 1 to Jan. 15. The regulation also eliminates a policy under which individuals with low incomes who are eligible for premium-free plans are automatically re-enrolled in them. Under the new rule, they will be re-enrolled with a $5 monthly premium in plan year 2026. If the individual files paperwork showing they are still eligible for a no-premium plan, they'll be re-enrolled in one. Taken together, CMS estimates the changes will cause individual health insurance premiums to drop by an average of 5 percent.
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court rejects fast track of Trump tariff challenge by toy companies
Key Points President Donald Trump's tariffs, a key part of his trade agenda, have drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority to implement the high levies. The Supreme Court ruling gives the Trump administration more time to file its response to the challenge from two toy companies. The two toy companies argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give Trump the authority to implement his tariffs. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from two toy companies to expedite their challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The ruling from the nation's high court means that the Trump administration now has the standard 30-day window to file its response to the challenge. Two small family-owned companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, argued that Trump lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his April 2 tariffs. The companies earlier this week asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of their challenge and bypass a federal appeals court. "In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process," the companies argued in their request. Rick Woldenberg, the chairman and CEO of Learning Resource and hand2mind, told CNBC that the Friday Supreme Court decision "was a disappointment but honestly just another twist in the road." "You want to win every motion but sometimes you don't," he said, adding that, "ultimately this showdown will be at the Supreme Court." Trump declared a national economic emergency under the IEEPA to justify implementing his tariffs without first getting congressional approval, a strategy that has drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority The U.S. Court of International Trade last month temporarily blocked Trump's tariffs, saying that the IEEPA, which became law in 1977, does not authorize a president to implement universal duties on imports. But a federal appeals court earlier this month allowed Trump's tariffs to remain in effect until it hears arguments on that case at the end of next month. — CNBC's Lori Ann Wallace contributed reporting.
