# Elizabeth Alexander v. President Donald J. Trump

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060299

## Case

- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** May 28, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060299

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a litigant must assert his own legal rights and interests

## Opinion text

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, et al.,
Petitioners,

v.

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,
Respondent.

No. 4D2025-1019

[May 28, 2025]

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Robert L. Pegg, Judge; L.T. Case No.
472022CA000246.

Charles D. Tobin, Chad R. Bowman, and Maxwell S. Mishkin of Ballard
Spahr LLP, Washington, D.C., and Paul R. Berg of Whitebird, PLLC, Vero
Beach, for petitioners.

Timothy W. Weber, Jeremy D. Bailie, and R. Quincy Bird of Weber,
Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for respondent.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J.

Petitioners-Defendants Elizabeth Alexander, Anne Applebaum, Nancy
Barnes, Lee C. Bollinger, Katherine Boo, Nicole Carroll, Steve Coll, Gail
Collins, John Daniszewski, Gabriel Escobar, Kelly Lytle Hernandez,
Edward Kliment, Carlos Lozada, Kevin Merida, Marjorie Miller, Viet Thanh
Nguyen, Emily Ramshaw, David Remnick, Tommie Shelby, and Neil Brown
have filed a petition pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.100(c) for review of the trial court’s order denying their motion to
temporarily stay the underlying civil action given Respondent Donald J.
Trump’s status as President of the United States.

This case is before us for the second time. See Alexander v. Trump, 404
So. 3d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). In their petition, Petitioners assert they
are entitled to a stay of the underlying proceedings, including discovery,
because the Plaintiff-Respondent is the current President of the United
States. They argue a stay of the case will avoid the constitutional conflicts
arising from allowing Respondent to proceed as a plaintiff in a state court
civil action on claims that may involve his official conduct as the President.
For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition and affirm the trial
court’s order.

Appellate courts have discretionary certiorari jurisdiction to review an
order denying a motion to stay an action. See REWJB Gas Invs. v. Land
O’Sun Realty, Ltd., 645 So. 2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Fla. R.
App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A). Similarly, a trial court has broad discretion in
ordering or denying a stay. Sauder v. Rayman, 800 So. 2d 355, 358 (Fla.
4th DCA 2001). That ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an
abuse of discretion, which for certiorari must be a serious error that
amounts to a departure from a clearly established principle of law. Office
Depot, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 937 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006).

At the outset, we acknowledge that state court litigation involving a
sitting President raises unique and profound questions under the
Constitution. The President “occupies a unique position in the
constitutional scheme,” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 (1982), as
“the only person who alone composes a branch of government,” Trump v.
Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. 848, 868 (2020). Because the President
embodies the Executive Branch of the federal government, state courts
must be restrained from interfering with his office’s operations under both
the Supremacy Clause, contained in Article VI, Clause 2, of the United
States Constitution, and Article II of the United States Constitution. See
Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 500 (1866) (“[T]he President is the
executive department.”).

Petitioners argue the trial court’s order denying their request to stay
the proceedings invites an unavoidable constitutional collision between
the trial court’s exercise of “[t]he judicial power” under Article V of the
Florida Constitution and Respondent’s exercise of “[t]he executive Power”
under Article II, as well as the Supremacy Clause. Petitioners further
argue allowing this matter to proceed while Respondent is in office will
interfere with his official duties and responsibilities under the
Constitution. Petitioners effectively ask that the court invoke a temporary
immunity under the Supremacy Clause on Respondent’s behalf to stay
this civil proceeding, even though Respondent has not sought such relief.
They further allege that it would violate due process to allow Respondent
to claim constitutional entitlement to stay cases because of his office but
not allow them the same ability.

2
Article II, section 1, clause 1 of the United States Constitution, also
known as the Vesting Clause, provides that “[t]he executive Power shall be
vested in a President of the United States of America.” The United States
Supreme Court has held that the powers and immunities granted under
Article II, in addition to other privileges, belong to the President and can
be asserted by him. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708 (1974).
That privilege, like others, “relates to the effective discharge of a President's
powers,” and is “fundamental to the operation of Government and
inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.”
Id. at 708, 711. But such privileges are afforded to the President alone,
not to his litigation adversaries. See id. at 708.

Such privileges are not unique to the presidency. Other public officials
enjoy similar protections as well. See § 11.111, Fla. Stat. (2024) (providing
for the continuance of court proceedings during any session of the
Legislature when a member of the Legislature is a party, witness, or
attorney representing one of the litigants in the case). As explained in Ferri
v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (1979):

[Public servants] represent the interest of society as a whole.
The conduct of their official duties may adversely affect a wide
variety of different individuals, each of whom may be a
potential source of future controversy. The societal interest in
providing such public officials with the maximum ability to
deal fearlessly and impartially with the public at large has long
been recognized as an acceptable justification for official
immunity. The point of immunity for such officials is to
forestall an atmosphere of intimidation that would conflict
with their resolve to perform their designated functions in a
principled fashion.

Id. at 202–04. Likewise, a narrow immunity is given to Members of
Congress found in the Speech or Debate Clause, Article I, Section 6, Clause
1, of the United States Constitution, but by its express terms, such
immunity does not apply to non-officeholders. See Lake Country Ests., Inc.
v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 404 (1979). Although Ferri, 444
U.S. at 202-04, and Lake Country Estates, Inc., 440 U.S. at 404, address
absolute immunity from suit—which is not at issue in this case—the
justification for the immunity discussed in both cases is comparable to the
justification supporting the privileges afforded to the President, namely
preventing interference with the performance of a government official’s
designated functions.

3
In this case, Petitioners claim the right to assert a constitutional
entitlement to a stay of the underlying proceedings like that available to a
President by invoking it on Respondent’s behalf. While government
officials may claim the immunities and protections provided to them in
court proceedings, 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. See, e.g., United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7
(1953) (executive privilege “can neither be claimed nor waived” by a third
party). The principle of standing says that, generally, one cannot assert
someone else’s constitutional rights. United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S.
762, 769 (2023); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)
(explaining that a litigant must assert his own legal rights and interests).
Immunities and privileges, by their very nature, inure solely to the benefit
of the individual for whom they are intended. Thus, application of a
governmental immunity cannot be asserted by the Petitioners as private
citizens.

For their claim of entitlement to a stay of the underlying proceedings,
Petitioners rely primarily on Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), and
Zervos v. Trump, 94 N.Y.S.3d 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). 1 Petitioners also
reference the President’s arguments in another case pending against him
in a Delaware state court, where he has requested a stay of the proceedings
based on his status as a sitting President. See Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, or Alternatively, to Stay on the Basis of Temporary Presidential
Immunity, United Atlantic Ventures, LLC v. TMTG Sub Inc., No. 2024-0184-
MTZ (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2025). However, reliance on those cases is
misplaced.

Both Jones and Zervos involved requests by President Clinton and
President Trump, respectively, for stays in litigation when each was a party
defendant. But in both cases, the courts found that although the
President was certainly entitled to ask for a pause in the underlying legal
proceedings, he was not necessarily entitled to one as a matter of law. In
Jones, the Supreme Court held President Clinton could be sued in federal
court for alleged sexual advances that occurred before becoming President.
520 U.S. at 685, 693-95. The Court further held that “the doctrine of
separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private
actions against the President until he leaves office.” Id. at 705-06. The
Court also recognized that, while the trial court had discretion to stay the

1 This court is not bound by the decisions rendered in Zervos or in any other state

court relating to stays of those proceedings. See J. J. Murphy & Son, Inc. v. Gibbs,
137 So. 2d 553, 562-63 (Fla. 1962).

4
case, discretion would have been abused under the circumstances. Id. at
706-08. In Zervos, a New York court held that President Trump, as the
sitting President of the United States, was not entitled to a stay in a state
court action grounded in claims of defamation brought against him based
on alleged actions that occurred before taking office. 94 N.Y.S.3d at 78,
82-88.

Petitioners also rely on Zervos and United Atlantic to assert that
Respondent is estopped from objecting to their request to pause this case
because of legal arguments made on his behalf seeking stays in other
courts. These cases are not substantially similar to the one at bar to estop
Respondent from objecting to a stay. By trying to draw parallels to those
cases, Petitioners conflate situations where the President is a defendant in
an action, in contrast to this case, where the President is the plaintiff.
Because those cases involve situations where a President was the
defendant on claims brought against him, and not a plaintiff pursuing
claims initiated by him, those cases are inapposite.

Petitioners correctly point out that whenever a President is sued in state
court in his individual capacity, and attempts are made to institute
compulsory process over him, the risk of distractions to his public duties
in dealing with such lawsuits creates an inherent risk to the effective
functioning of government. Such lawsuits subject a President not only to
potential harassment, but also risk diverting him from his official duties
which are of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S.
786, 800 (2020). That is not in dispute.

However, this is not a case where the state court is asserting
jurisdiction over Respondent without his consent. Quite the contrary.
Here, Respondent is a willing participant in the underlying proceedings
and has thus far declined to assert a privilege to cease this action. Even
though litigants may be entitled to claim a privilege, they may also
voluntarily elect not to. See Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 653
(1976) (explaining that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory
self-incrimination does not prevent a person from voluntarily testifying in
matters that may be incriminating); Gay v. Whitehurst, 44 So. 2d 430, 432
(Fla. 1950) (“One may waive or remit any constitutional or statutory
privilege made for his personal benefit.”).

Here, Respondent has not sought the affirmative relief of a stay in the
trial court. When the President is a willing participant, courts do not risk
improperly interfering with the essential functioning of government. The
President—by virtue of his exceptional position—is uniquely equipped to

5
determine how to use his time, to assess the attention a lawsuit will
require, and to decide whether the lawsuit will divert him from his official
business. When an officeholder chooses to initiate litigation, courts must
assume the officeholder already has weighed the burdens on their official
duties. Although Petitioners raise several claims about how this case will
negatively impact Respondent’s ability to perform his duties as President,
the trial court correctly observed that the filing of any request for a stay or
other relief from court orders in the underlying proceedings because of his
role as the nation’s Chief Executive would be solely in his prerogative:

Should the duties of the President interfere with his ability to
perform his obligations in this action, he is certainly entitled
to seek the appropriate relief. Should he not do so, yet not
comply with the rules of this court, defendants may apply for
the appropriate sanctions as they would against any other
plaintiff. These could be the usual sanctions of fines, costs,
attorney’s fees, and the ultimate sanction of dismissal of the
action should that be appropriate. Defendants would not be
precluded from seeking another stay of the proceeding if
plaintiff fails to perform his obligations under Florida law and
the [R]ules of [C]ivil [P]rocedure.

Although Petitioners claim this litigation will be a distraction to the
Presidency, Respondent is in the best position to determine if these
proceedings would be a diversion and interfere with the obligations of his
office, or whether his continued participation is consistent with the
performance of his official responsibilities. And, as the trial court correctly
pointed out in its order, Respondent also retains the right to either dismiss
this case or seek a stay in the future should an assessment of his time
commitment change, or if scheduling issues arise due to circumstances
occurring during the litigation. Further, if such issues were to occur,
courts have flexible tools to handle timing without freezing litigation
altogether. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b)(1) (“In General. When an act may
or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause
extend the time[.]”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.460 (permitting trial courts to grant
motions to continue upon good cause shown).

In sum, the right to claim burdens on executive functions belongs to
the Executive Branch—not to its opponent. Separation of powers protects
the Executive from undue burdens imposed by other branches, not
burdens which the Executive willingly accepts. While both Article II and
the Supremacy Clause operate as a shield to protect both the President
and the Presidency from the risks of harassment and distraction by being

6
hailed into state courts as an unwilling defendant, those same protections
may not be used by his adversaries as a sword to prevent Respondent from
voluntarily initiating or continuing civil litigation in his individual capacity.
Though Petitioners raise several speculative concerns about the potential
impact this litigation may have on the ability of Respondent to fulfill his
Presidential duties, they lack standing to raise such concerns. Courts
should focus only on real burdens raised by the Executive as a plaintiff,
not those hypothesized by any defendants. Whether the pursuit of this
litigation is in his best interests, or consistent with the responsibilities of
his office, is exclusively within Respondent’s purview. Therefore, the
petition for review is denied.

Petition denied.

WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

7

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060299. Public record. Not legal advice.