Another judge who previously ruled in favor of President Donald Trump has been elevated to the federal bench, continuing the administration’s effort to reshape the judiciary with nominees who have extensive judicial and prosecutorial experience.
The confirmation also marks the second time the Senate has approved a federal judgeship for a Florida appellate judge who participated in a high-profile ruling involving Trump’s lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board.
The Senate voted 51-46 on Wednesday to confirm Jeffrey Kuntz to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, one of the nation’s busiest federal trial courts.
The largely party-line vote gives Kuntz a lifetime appointment under Article III of the Constitution.
Kuntz most recently served on Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, where he previously held the position of chief judge.
He is the second judge from that court to receive a federal appointment after participating in a key ruling involving Trump’s lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board.
Last September, the Senate confirmed Judge Ed Artau to the same federal district court after he joined Kuntz on the appellate panel.
The two judges were part of a three-member panel that ruled in February 2025 that Trump’s defamation lawsuit against members of the Pulitzer Prize Board could continue moving forward.
Kuntz authored the opinion, which Artau joined.
Trump filed the lawsuit in 2022 after the Pulitzer Prize Board declined his request to revoke the 2018 Pulitzer Prize awarded jointly to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and alleged connections between Russia and Trump’s campaign.
Trump argued that the board defamed him when it issued a public statement defending its decision not to rescind the award.
The Florida appellate court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed, allowing Trump’s claims to continue through the judicial process.
According to Kuntz’s responses to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, the White House Counsel’s Office first interviewed him about a possible federal judgeship approximately two weeks after that appellate ruling was issued.
During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware questioned Kuntz about whether he should have recused himself from hearing the Pulitzer case.
Coons noted that Kuntz had previously spoken with the office of Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., regarding a possible federal judicial nomination before the appellate decision was issued.
Kuntz explained that he spoke with Scott’s office in November 2024 after Trump’s election but did not learn he would hear the Pulitzer case until January 2025, when it was randomly assigned to his panel.
He also testified that he had no contact with the White House regarding a nomination until after the court had completed its decision.
He also said Florida’s judicial ethics rules did not require him to recuse himself because there was no conflict under the applicable standards.
Republicans defended Kuntz’s qualifications throughout the confirmation process, pointing to his years of judicial service and legal experience.
Before joining the appellate court, Kuntz served in private practice and held various legal positions in Florida.
He was originally appointed to Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in 2016 by then-Gov. Rick Scott.
Democrats, meanwhile, questioned both the timing of the nomination and the appearance created by elevating judges who had recently ruled in Trump’s favor in a case involving the president personally.
No evidence was presented during the confirmation process that Kuntz violated judicial ethics rules or that the appellate panel’s assignment of the Pulitzer case was anything other than random, Reuters reported.
With his confirmation now complete, Kuntz will join the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where he is expected to preside over a broad range of federal cases involving civil litigation, criminal prosecutions, constitutional disputes and other matters within the court’s jurisdiction.
