Judge that handed Trump massive legal win in Florida was nominated by the president to the federal judiciary: “Restoring law and order”
Florida – The process of appointing federal judges is always under the spotlight, but the recent case of Ed Artau, a contender for a federal judgeship in Florida, has caused a lot of controversy. Artau was being considered for a coveted seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in a closely watched defamation lawsuit while he was actively seeking the nomination.
Politico has obtained Senate records that show Artau was meeting with the office of Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott to push for his own federal nomination in the weeks after Trump’s 2024 election triumph. Around the same time, Artau was on a state court panel that gave Trump a significant win in his lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board.
This suit, filed by Trump, challenged the Board’s decision to grant awards to reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election—reporting Trump has long labeled as false, despite the conclusions of a special counsel investigation.
Artau was interviewed with the White House Counsel’s Office just a few days after the court ruled in Trump’s favor. By May, Trump made the nomination public, thanking Artau for following what the former president’s administration called the “restoration of law and order” and promising to read the Constitution as it is written.
“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 to Politico. “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.”
Artau’s controversial decision called the Supreme Court to look again at the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, which said that public individuals must prove “actual malice” to win defamation lawsuits against the press. Critics claim that dismantling this standard would make it much easier for public leaders to use legal threats to silence critics and journalists. Trump has openly embraced this idea, saying that libel laws should be changed to make it easier to sue media outlets.
Artau said in his Senate questionnaire that he never talked about any current litigation or legal problems with anyone involved in his nomination process. 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.”
The episode comes at a time when the relationship between the judiciary and politics is under a magnifying glass. While some see Artau’s ascent as an example of merit, others see it as a sign of a shifting landscape—one where the intersection of legal rulings and career advancement is more visible, and more contentious, than ever before.
The White House remains steadfast, with spokesperson Harrison Fields stating, “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.
“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,” Fields added.
