A Florida judge ruled in Trump’s favor as he sought a federal judgeship. Trump rewarded him.
It’s the second time, in this particular case, that Trump has nominated one of the judges who sided with him.
On Wednesday, April 29, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a nominations hearing. The anticipated witnesses are the nominees Trump announced on April 1: Jeffrey Kuntz for the Southern District of Florida, Mike Hendershot for the Northern District of Ohio, Arthur “Rob” Jones for the Southern District of Texas, and John Marck for the Southern District of Texas.
When Trump announced Kuntz’s nomination on Truth Social, he wrote that “Jeffrey has been TOUGH and SMART” and that he “delivered strong results for the Sunshine State.” He said that “Jeffrey has demonstrated his commitment to the Rule of Law throughout his career. He will always defend our Great Constitution, and put our Country, FIRST.”
A new letter sent to senators today by People For the American Way raises serious ethical concerns surrounding Kuntz’s nomination and calls into question whether Kuntz will put the rule of law and Constitution first — or whether he will instead prioritize loyalty to Trump above all else.
First, recall that Trump appointed five judges to the Southern District of Florida during his first term, including loyalist Aileen Cannon. Last year, he nominated — and the Senate confirmed — Ed Artau to this court, and the same ethical concerns being raised about Kuntz were raised about Artau’s nomination as well. As People For’s letter says:
Kuntz is a state appeals court judge in Florida. While he was in the process of being considered for a Trump nomination to the Southern District, he sat on a defamation case in which Trump was a party in his personal capacity. The final brief was submitted to the appeals court on October 25, 2024, after which Kuntz was randomly assigned to the panel, as was Artau.
Following Trump’s reelection, Kuntz spoke to Senator Rick Scott’s office in November 2024 about his interest in seeking a federal judgeship. Kuntz then wrote the opinion in Alexander v. Trump (Artau concurred and wrote a separate concurring opinion), which was issued in Trump’s favor on February 12, 2025. According to Artau’s responses to written questions for the record last year, the White House Counsel’s Office reached out to him eight days later, on February 20, expressing interest in interviewing him and others for a judicial vacancy. Kuntz’s Senate questionnaire only says that he was contacted in “February 2025,” but it’s reasonable to assume that he was also contacted on or around February 20, after his opinion was issued in Trump’s favor. Kuntz interviewed with the White House on February 28, 2025. Last month he was contacted by them again, and Trump announced his nomination on April 1.
As People For’s letter states, “When Artau’s conflict of interest became known in the course of his nomination to a federal judgeship, it led to a formal ethics complaint being filed against him with the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. Kuntz’s actions raise the same serious ethical questions.” The Artau complaint is available here.
“Florida’s judicial canons of conduct required his recusal,” People For’s letter says. As they note, Canon 3E states that “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned…” There are several examples listed, though the list is not exhaustive. People For further writes:
It is clear that a judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under the circumstances Kuntz was in. He was in the process of asking a party in a case before him for a position that would not only bring him professional accolades, it would also provide him with a guaranteed job with a guaranteed income for the rest of his life.
“Kuntz’s participation in this case, apparently without disclosing the conflict to the parties Trump was suing, is a textbook example of unethical conduct,” the letter says.
Kuntz, who will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee in six days to testify under oath, should be asked about these actions, and additional questions should be asked, in writing, for the record.