On Tuesday, May 19, 2026, the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) filed a complaint against Jeffrey Kuntz, Chief Judge of Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, alleging violations of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. The complaint, addressed to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, centers on Kuntz’s handling of a defamation lawsuit filed by then-private citizen Donald Trump against the Pulitzer Prize Board.

The core of the FPF’s complaint is that Judge Kuntz presided over a lawsuit brought by Trump while simultaneously being considered for a federal judicial appointment by Trump. The FPF contends that Kuntz failed to recuse himself or disclose this potential conflict of interest, thereby violating judicial ethics.

The timeline detailed in the complaint highlights Kuntz’s actions. In December 2022, Donald Trump filed a personal defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board concerning its refusal to rescind 2018 Pulitzer Prizes awarded for reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The case reached the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, where Judge Kuntz was part of the panel assigned to determine if Florida courts had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state Pulitzer Board defendants.

Crucially, in November 2024, shortly after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Judge Kuntz reportedly contacted Senator Rick Scott’s office to express interest in a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This outreach occurred while the Alexander v. Trump appeal was still pending before his court.

Kuntz continued to preside over the Alexander v. Trump case. On February 12, 2025, he authored a unanimous panel opinion ruling that Trump’s defamation lawsuit could proceed in a Florida state court. This ruling was seen as a significant legal victory for Trump.

Less than three weeks later, on February 28, 2025, Judge Kuntz was interviewed by attorneys from the Trump White House Counsel’s Office regarding the federal judicial vacancy. On April 1, 2026, President Trump officially announced his nomination of Kuntz to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The FPF argues that this sequence of events falls squarely within the ethical concerns addressed by Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The foundation specifically points to the commentary of Canon 3E(1), which states that a judge is disqualified when “in the process of negotiating for employment” with a party appearing before them. The FPF asserts that Kuntz was engaged in this process through his contact with Senator Scott’s office and the subsequent White House interview.

Furthermore, the complaint cites Canon 3E(1)(c), which requires recusal when a judge has a “more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” The FPF contends that a pending application for a lifetime federal judicial appointment from one of the parties in a case before him constitutes such an interest.

The FPF also raises concerns under Canon 2, which requires judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” The foundation argues that the timing of Kuntz’s actions—contacting a senator about a nomination, ruling favorably for Trump, being interviewed by the White House, and then being nominated—creates an appearance of impropriety that would be perceived by a reasonable observer.

The complaint further alleges a “Failure to Disclose,” stating there is no public evidence that Kuntz informed the defendants in Alexander v. Trump (the Pulitzer Board members) that he was simultaneously seeking a presidential nomination from their adversary. The FPF maintains that the defendants had a right to know about this potential conflict.

In conclusion, the Freedom of the Press Foundation urges the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission to investigate these matters thoroughly and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that public confidence in the judiciary depends on decisions being made based on law and facts, not on a judge’s personal career interests.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.