A Florida state judge was lobbying for a seat on the federal bench. After he sided with the president in a defamation case, Donald Trump gave him one.
Ed Artau, now a nominee to be a district court judge in Florida, met with staff in the office of Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott to angle for the nomination less than two weeks after Trump’s election last fall, according to a new Senate disclosure obtained by POLITICO. In the midst of his interviews, Artau was part of a panel of judges that ruled in Trump’s favor in the president’s case against members of the Pulitzer Prize Board.
About two weeks after the court published his opinion — which called for the overturning of a landmark Supreme Court case that made it harder for public officials to sue journalists — he interviewed with the White House Counsel’s Office. In May, Trump announced his nomination to the federal judiciary.
Critics raised concerns about Artau’s impartiality at the time of the announcement, in light of his ruling in the Pulitzer case. But the overlapping timeline of that decision with his meetings with Senate staff and the White House Counsel’s Office has not previously been reported.
Artau did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said Trump had full confidence in his nominee and anticipated Artau’s confirmation.
“The standards of the President’s judicial nominations are simple: restoring law and order, ending the weaponization of the judicial branch, and interpreting the Constitution as written,” Fields said. “Ed Artau has demonstrated these principles throughout his esteemed career and will continue to do so as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.”
The president has wide latitude to nominate whomever he wishes to the federal bench. But Artau’s vehement defense of Trump — while seeking a nomination from his administration — raises ethical questions about his partiality in the Pulitzer case. The administration’s decision to nominate Artau after that opinion also reflects a pattern of elevating those who have sought to ingratiate themselves with Trump.
“Coming across as an archpartisan is now perceived as something that can help your cause with President Trump,” Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said in an interview. “The idea that you would have a judge thinking you know, it’s a good idea to go on the warpath in support of the President, is really a new development.”
According to his official Senate questionnaire, Artau met with Scott’s general counsel on Nov. 14 to discuss his interest in the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) was appointed to the Senate in January to succeed now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Artau contacted her office to indicate interest in the nomination. At some point after that, Artau said he was informed the senators would recommend him.
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.
Read the full article here
