Judicial Nominee Who Ruled for Trump Defends Non-Recusal (2)

A judicial nominee who ruled for Donald Trump as a state court judge in a Florida defamation suit pushed back on any suggestion that there was a conflict with the president who nominated him and should’ve recused.

Jeff Kuntz appeared before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday where he was asked by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) whether Florida rules required him to step aside “if one of the parties before you has an interest” that a reasonable person might think could cloud “your judgment on that matter.”

Kuntz said he didn’t meet the test for recusal under Florida judicial canons, and disputed the notion of any improper overlap with the February 2025 decision and his interest in and vetting for an appointment to the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

“I disagree with that characterization,” Kuntz responded to Coons’ question on a potential conflict over his nomination. “I had not heard from the White House until after the opinion was final.”

Coons’ question came as other recent court picks have generated concerns from Democrats about judicial independence. Trump selected three of his personal lawyers for circuit seats.

If confirmed, Kuntz would be the second judge on the Florida court that ruled in Trump’s favor on a personal jurisdiction question in the defamation case against the Pulitzer Prize Board to be tapped for a lifetime judicial appointment.

Trump claims the board defamed him by refusing to rescind awards for media outlets reporting on Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. Kuntz, the chief judge on Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals, wrote the panel ruling that allowed Trump’s suit to proceed.

Kuntz included Alexander v. Trump atop his list of the most significant cases he’s presided over, according to his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.

Kuntz spoke with Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) office in November 2024 regarding his interest in a seat on the federal bench, according to his questionnaire. Kuntz said Wednesday that he didn’t get that nomination once Trump returned to office.

He said he first learned of the Trump case in January of 2025 before it was randomly assigned. The decision was issued on Feb. 12 after which he was contacted by, and then met with the White House Counsel’s office on Feb. 28. Trump announced his nomination April 1 of this year.

Ed Artau, who also sat on the Fourth District Court and wrote a separate concurrence in Trump’s case, was confirmed to the Southern District in September 2025.

Artau said he also followed all ethics requirements in participating in the case, but the timing of his communications with the Senate and White House about the job also raised questions among Democrats about his impartiality and the selection process.

Progressive groups urged the judiciary committee to reject Kuntz’s nomination.

“Confirming Kuntz’s nomination would further normalize the erosion of judicial independence and continue to signal to the public that loyalty to a president matters more than a judge’s own compliance with the rule of law,” Rachel Rossi, president of the progressive Alliance for Justice, said in a letter to the Senate opposing Kuntz’s nomination. Progressive advocacy group People for the American Way, in a separate letter, also urged that the panel not confirm Kuntz.

Trump said in selecting Kuntz that he’s “highly respected” and has “demonstrated his commitment to the rule of law” and would defend the Constitution.