President Donald Trump’s defamation battle with the Pulitzer Prize board has taken a sharp turn toward Florida’s highest court. The board is scrambling to pause the lawsuit, claiming it could interfere with Trump’s duties as president, but lower courts aren’t buying their constitutional hand-wringing.

According to Law&Crime, the Florida Supreme Court docketed the board’s appeal on Monday, challenging a prior ruling that rejected their request to stall the case until Trump’s current term ends.

This legal saga began in December 2022, when Trump sued the Pulitzer board over their defense of a 2018 National Reporting award. The award, shared by The Washington Post and The New York Times, honored coverage of the so-called “Russiagate” probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Despite Special Counsel Robert Mueller finding no collusion, the board’s glowing praise of the reporting—and their subsequent public defense—sparked Trump’s ire.

Origins of a Contentious Lawsuit

Trump’s lawsuit followed months of legal threats aimed at the board for standing by the award. Their 2022 statement doubled down, framing the reporting as vital to public understanding of foreign meddling, which Trump argues smeared his campaign and administration.

By July 2024, a judge in Okeechobee County, Florida, ruled that the board’s statement qualified as “actionable mixed opinion.” This greenlit Trump’s claims, affirming they were properly pled for litigation. It’s a win for accountability, though some might wonder if elite media gatekeepers ever face real consequences.

The Pulitzer board, however, isn’t backing down without a fight. They pushed to pause the lawsuit, arguing that state court proceedings could improperly entangle a sitting president. Their logic seems a bit rich—Trump’s the plaintiff here, not the defendant being hounded.

Constitutional Arguments Fall Flat

In January, the board leaned on the Supremacy Clause and Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution to bolster their case. They claimed litigation would exert “direct control” over Trump, disrupting his executive duties. Yet, one might ask if this isn’t just a clever dodge to avoid scrutiny of their editorial choices.

On May 28, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal shot down the board’s plea for a stay. They upheld the trial court’s summer 2024 order, noting that constitutional privileges protect the president, not those he sues. It’s a pointed reminder that legal shields aren’t one-size-fits-all.

The appellate court’s ruling was clear: “[S]uch privileges are afforded to the President alone, not to his litigation adversaries.” This cuts through the board’s attempt to flip Trump’s past legal defenses against him. If you’re suing for defamation, you don’t get to hide behind the Oval Office’s shadow.

Final Shot at Florida’s Supreme Court

Now, with their appeal docketed on Monday, the Pulitzer board gets one last shot at Florida’s Supreme Court. Their notice invokes discretionary jurisdiction, arguing the case hinges on interpreting the U.S. Constitution. But recycling failed arguments hardly screams confidence.

The board’s filing acknowledges that state litigation involving a president raises “unique and profound questions.” Still, lower courts have already dismissed their claim that this justifies a pause until Trump’s term concludes. It’s hard to see this as anything but a delay tactic.

Trump, meanwhile, is pushing for discovery to uncover the board’s internal discussions and editorial decisions. The board’s resistance suggests they’re less than eager to air how they justified praising reporting later undermined by Mueller’s findings. Transparency, it seems, isn’t their favorite virtue.

Broader Implications for Media Accountability

This case isn’t just about Trump—it’s a test of whether media arbiters like the Pulitzer board can be held accountable for statements that may cross into defamation. While freedom of the press remains sacred, conservatives might argue that unchecked narratives, especially those tied to progressive agendas, need a reality check.

The board’s defense of the “Russiagate” coverage as “deeply sourced” and “relentlessly reported” rings hollow to those who saw the story collapse under scrutiny. Yet, there’s a fair point in recognizing the complexity of presidential litigation. Both sides deserve a hearing, even if the board’s stalling feels like a sidestep.

As the Florida Supreme Court takes up this appeal, the outcome could set a precedent for how sitting presidents navigate civil suits as plaintiffs. For now, Trump’s fight for vindication continues while the Pulitzer board clings to constitutional cover. One thing’s certain: this clash of titans won’t fade quietly into the Sunshine State’s legal archives.