On Wednesday, April 29, 2026, Law360 reported that a judicial nominee for the Southern District of Florida, Chief Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz, denied any conflict of interest in presiding over a defamation case involving President Donald Trump while being considered for a federal judgeship. Kuntz, who serves on Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, addressing concerns raised about his impartiality.

The controversy stems from Kuntz’s involvement in a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2025 that Trump could sue the Pulitzer Prize Board members. The lawsuit concerns the Pulitzer Prize awarded for reporting on allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

During his testimony, Judge Kuntz told Sen. Chris Coons that he first learned of the case in January 2025, after having already spoken with a state senator, Rick Scott, in November 2024 about his interest in the federal judgeship. He clarified that the appellate panel he was on made its ruling before he was contacted by the White House. According to his nomination paperwork, the White House Counsel’s Office first contacted him in February 2025 and interviewed him on February 28, 2025. He was contacted again in March 2026 regarding the possible nomination.

When questioned by Coons about recusal, Judge Kuntz asserted that he was not required to recuse himself under the Florida judicial canons, as he did not believe he had a personal interest in the litigation. Coons then asked if the Florida canons would require him to recuse if one of the parties before him had an interest that could be reasonably concluded by any common citizen to cloud his judgment. Judge Kuntz disputed the characterization, stating that the Florida court issued its decision before he had heard from the White House. The decision in the defamation case was released on February 12, 2025.

Concerns about Judge Kuntz’s nomination have also been raised by the progressive advocacy organization People for the American Way. They argued that Judge Kuntz was seeking the judicial nomination from Trump while simultaneously presiding over a case involving the president. They claim the situation is similar to concerns raised during the nomination process of U.S. District Judge Edward L. Artau, who also served on the three-judge panel in the Pulitzer Prize case.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also heard from other judicial nominees, including Mike Hendershot, John Marck, and Arthur “Rob” Jones.

 

 

Source: Law360