WILMINGTON, Del. — President Donald Trump is seeking Trump immunity that would pause civil lawsuits against him while he is in office, even as he files sweeping, high-dollar claims against media outlets and other targets in courts across the country. Critics and some defendants say the Trump immunity posture would let him pursue aggressive discovery as a plaintiff while arguing he is too busy to meet the demands of being sued, Feb. 14, 2026.
Trump’s latest legal strategy is playing out on multiple fronts at once, including two high-profile efforts by defendants to delay cases he brought. A federal judge in Florida refused to pause discovery in Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC, and a Florida appeals court has already rejected the Pulitzer Prize Board’s bid to put Trump’s defamation suit on hold until he leaves office.
The fight has sharpened questions about whether Trump immunity is becoming a procedural tool, not just a constitutional debate — and whether a sitting president can credibly argue he needs protection from the “diversions” of civil litigation while choosing to launch one case after another.
Trump immunity tested as judges refuse to pause proceedings
Trump’s lawyers first pushed a version of Trump immunity soon after he won reelection in November 2024, asking a Delaware judge to recognize a “rule of temporary immunity” from state-court civil litigation in a fight tied to his Truth Social business. The request — outlined in a Reuters report on Trump’s “too busy” immunity claim — argued that the presidency should be protected from “diversions, distractions and harassment” while Trump is in office.
Even as his lawyers argue for Trump immunity to delay cases where he is a defendant, Trump has continued to file civil lawsuits in his personal capacity, including defamation claims against Penguin Random House and multiple news organizations and separate suits against JPMorgan Chase and the IRS, seeking tens of billions of dollars in damages. Lawyers for some defendants have warned that a broad Trump immunity rule could create one-sided discovery — letting Trump demand documents and testimony as a plaintiff while resisting similar requests when he is sued.
The temporary-immunity issue did not get resolved on the merits in Delaware: the case was dismissed in September without a ruling on that theory, according to the Reuters account. But the filing laid down a marker that has echoed into other courtrooms, as defendants argue that if Trump wants civil cases against him paused under a Trump immunity rationale, he should accept similar limits in the cases he filed.
University of Michigan Law School professor Richard Primus likened the approach to an unfair game. “It’s like saying, ‘We’re going to play baseball and only I get to bat,’” he told Reuters.
In a separate report last year, ABC News detailed Trump’s request for a four-year delay or dismissal in a lawsuit brought by Trump Media co-founders Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss — a legal dispute that helped put the “temporary presidential immunity” theory in the spotlight.
In Iowa, pollster Ann Selzer asked a judge to stay Trump’s lawsuit against her and the Des Moines Register for the duration of his presidency — essentially turning his immunity argument back on him. The judge denied the request, leaving the case on track while questions linger about how any court would enforce orders against a sitting president.
Trump immunity and the press cases: BBC and Pulitzer Prize Board
In Trump’s BBC lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman of the Southern District of Florida rejected the broadcaster’s request to delay proceedings and denied a stay of discovery. Altman also set a two-week trial window starting Feb. 15, 2027, according to The Associated Press.
Trump filed the BBC case in December, accusing the publicly funded British broadcaster of defaming him by editing footage from his Jan. 6, 2021, speech and making it appear he urged supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol. Trump says the edit highlighted his call to “fight like hell” while cutting out remarks urging peaceful protest. The BBC has apologized for the edit but denies defamation and has said it will seek dismissal, arguing — among other things — that the program was not broadcast in Florida and that Trump cannot show damages because he was reelected after the documentary aired.
Trump’s Pulitzer Prize Board lawsuit has become another flashpoint for immunity arguments — especially over whether discovery can reach sensitive records when the president is the plaintiff. Trump sued board members in 2022 after the Pulitzer organization refused to rescind the 2018 National Reporting prize awarded jointly to The New York Times and The Washington Post for coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election and its connections to the Trump campaign.
In 2025, Pulitzer board members asked Florida courts to pause the case while Trump served as president. A South Florida appeals court turned them down, reasoning that when the president is a willing plaintiff, courts are not improperly interfering with the functioning of government and Trump can decide whether the litigation burdens him. NPR affiliate WUSF detailed that ruling and the board’s appeal effort in a July 2025 report.
The case has now moved deeper into discovery. In a filing Jan. 30, the Pulitzer Prize Board demanded documents ranging from an unredacted Mueller report to internal communications related to Trump-Russia reporting, requests that could test how those arguments intersect with state-court subpoenas and federal secrecy rules, according to Bloomberg Law.
What past immunity rulings suggest for Trump immunity now
Historically, the Supreme Court has rejected the idea that a president can automatically stop private civil litigation simply by taking office. In Clinton v. Jones, the court allowed Paula Jones’ lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton to proceed, concluding that civil litigation over unofficial conduct could continue while the president served.
The court has also recognized absolute immunity from civil damages for a president’s official acts, most notably in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
At the same time, the court has recognized significant protections for presidents in other contexts. Trump has pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States, which found broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — though the decision did not address civil litigation.
Trump’s lawyers argue that Trump immunity is “vital to the presidency” and that presidents do not surrender the right to sue over alleged wrongdoing. “Presidents do not relinquish that right upon taking the oath of office,” his legal team said in a statement cited by Reuters.
For now, courts appear focused less on broad constitutional pronouncements and more on practical case management: whether to delay discovery, how to schedule trials, and what remedies exist if a sitting president ignores an order. That means the next phase of the Trump immunity fight may be decided not only by appellate courts, but by judges managing deadlines — and by whether Trump chooses to keep filing, or to seek stays in his own cases rather than in those brought against him.
