The Pulitzer Prize Board is facing yet another loss in its attempt to stop President Trump’s defamation case from going to court.

On Wednesday, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected a novel attempt by the Pulitzer Board, which awards the coveted journalism prizes, to delay Mr. Trump’s lawsuit until he leaves office. 

Mr. Trump is suing the Pulitzer Board for defamation over its decision to award — and then reaffirm the award — a Pulitzer Prize to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their reporting on now-discredited allegations his 2016 campaign colluded with Russian operatives. 

The president responded to his latest win in a post on Truth Social, saying the court “viciously rejected the Defendants’ corrupt attempt to halt the case.”

He said that the Times and the Post will “have to give back their ‘Award’” for their “false reporting.”

“They won a Pulitzer Prize for totally incorrect reporting about the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax,” Mr. Trump wrote. “We can’t let that happen in the United States of America. We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People.”

Despite coastal legal observers describing Mr. Trump’s lawsuit as without merit and frivolous, the Pulitzer Board has failed in multiple efforts to stop the lawsuit from moving forward. In its latest attempt, it made a novel argument that as president, Mr. Trump was too busy to deal with the lawsuit and that it should wait until he left office. The board argued that the case presents “constitutional conflicts” and that it would “interfere with his official duties and responsibilities.”

However, the court disagreed. In a seven-page opinion, the court said the board was “effectively” asking the court to “invoke a temporary immunity under the Supremacy Clause on [Mr. Trump’s] behalf to stay this civil proceeding, even though [Mr. Trump] has not sought such relief.” The board also said that allowing the lawsuit to continue would let courts “exercise ‘direct control’ over” the president. 

While the court noted presidents have many “immunities and protections,” it said that “the law is clear that such privileges are not available to third parties to claim, nor may such privileges be asserted by others on the officials’ behalf.” 

It added that those privileges “may not be used by [Mr. Trump’s] adversaries as a sword to prevent [him] from voluntarily initiating or continuing civil litigation in his individual capacity.”

The opinion also rejected the Pulitzer Board’s warning that the lawsuit would be a distraction to the president, saying, Mr. Trump “is in the best position to determine if these proceedings would be a diversion and interfere with the obligations of his office, or whether continued participation is consistent with the performance of his official responsibilities.”

In a statement, the Pulitzer Board told the Sun, “Allowing this case to proceed facilitates President Trump’s use of state courts as both a sword and a shield — allowing him to seek retribution against anyone he chooses in state court while simultaneously claiming immunity for himself whenever convenient.”

“The Pulitzer Board is evaluating next steps and will continue our defense of journalism and First Amendment rights,” the statement added. 

Mr. Trump is suing the Pulitzer Board for defamation after the board re-affirmed in 2022 — after an independent review — its decision to give the National Reporting Prize to the Times and the Post for their coverage of Russian interference during the 2016 election. The board commissioned two independent reviews after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation could not prove collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, and issued a statement saying, “The 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in national reporting stand.”

After Mr. Trump’s victory over the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, the Times and the Post published a steady stream of articles focused on allegations that Russian operatives colluded with the Trump campaign to help his chances of winning. The articles inferred, without evidence, that there was collusion.

The coverage from the two papers provided tinder for Mr. Mueller’s investigation. But in 2019, Mr. Mueller and his team said in his report that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities.” However, it did confirm that there was “sweeping and systematic” interference in the election. It also said the Trump campaign thought it would “benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

When the Pulitzer Board awarded the prizes, prior to the release of the Mueller report, it said the reporting by the Times and the Post was “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.”

The decision to award the prize to the two papers for their Russia coverage irritated the president, and he repeatedly called for the outlets to return their prizes. 

However, the Pulitzer Board — which is composed largely of overtly liberal, mainstream editors and writers such as the anti-Trump New Yorker editor, David Remnick, and the anti-Trump Atlantic writer, Anne Applebaum — made a serious legal error in 2022 when it released the statement saying that two independent reviews of the award-winning reporting determined that no “passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.”

That statement reset the clock on the statute of limitations and gave Mr. Trump the opening to sue the board for defamation.

Since the president filed his lawsuit, the board has faced a string of defeats in trying to delay the trial or get it moved to a different venue than Florida, possibly New York, where it would hope to find a more sympathetic judge and, should the case go to trial, a more sympathetic jury.

So far, there’s been no indication that the Pulitzer Board will try to settle the case. Late last year, Disney settled with Mr. Trump for $16 million after he sued ABC over false comments by an ABC News personality, George Stephanopoulos. Paramount, the parent company of CBS, is currently trying to settle Mr. Trump’s lawsuit against CBS over the October 2024 “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Harris. The Pulitzers have no shortage of resources: They are administered by Columbia University, one of the country’s wealthiest universities.