By Nate Raymond

July 1 (Reuters) - Federal judges are public officials who must meet a higher bar to sue individuals for defamation, a federal judge concluded as he dismissed a lawsuit by one of his counterparts against onetime members of a Florida condo association's board.

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, reached that conclusion in an amended opinion released Monday that rejected claims by Senior U.S. District Judge Frederic Block. The Brooklyn-based judge had sued two former condo association board members, alleging they tried to destroy his reputation by falsely accusing him of computer hacking during a years-long feud over renovations.

Altman wrote Block had not shown that the allegedly false statements they made about him in a 2020 email were made with "actual malice," and thus failed to overcome the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Altman said he was unaware of any court previously determining whether an appointed federal judge, as opposed to an elected politician, qualified as a "public official" who must meet the heightened actual malice standard the Supreme Court established in 1964's New York Times Company v. Sullivan.

But Altman said Block was obviously such a public official, given the public's interest in the performance of federal judges and the power over governmental affairs they possess.

"Irrespective of how they obtain their offices, judges in our federalist system — state or federal — exercise sufficient power and responsibility (and engender sufficient public interest) to qualify as public officials," he wrote. "That goes for Block too."

Lawyers for Block and the defendants did not respond to requests for comment.

Altman issued the decision at a moment when judges have faced sharp criticism from the White House and conservative activists for stymieing Republican President Donald Trump's agenda.

The ruling brought to an end a lawsuit Block, a well-known federal judge in Brooklyn and book author, filed in 2021 stemming from his ownership of a unit in the Fort Lauderdale condo and construction delays involving a project on its grounds.

After attending a meeting with a representative of the condo's property management company about the project, Block sent an email in 2020 to about 90 people including unit owners about his concerns without blind copying any recipients.

In response, board members with the help of a lawyer prepared an email that was sent to residents of Block's condo tower responding to the message from the "disgruntled" unit owner.

Block alleged the email implied he engaged in hacking by contending his email blast caused "serious privacy and security concerns" and by advising residents to consider updating their computers’ security and privacy settings.

Block claimed the email defamed him by implicitly accusing him of criminal conduct. His lawsuit named as defendants two then-board members, David Matesic and Candyce Abbatt, as well as a lawyer who he said helped draft the letter.

"Whether Block is indeed a hacker — although, let's be clear, there's not an iota of evidence that he is — obviously bears on his fitness to serve as a federal judge," Altman wrote.

But Altman said Block presented "cursory and weak" arguments to establish the defendants knew Block was not a hacker and intended with actual malice to imply that he was one.

After the email was sent, Block himself was elected to the condo's board and was subject to a recall campaign by Matesic and Abbatt. Block said Matesic also filed ethics complaints against him, though the judge was later cleared of wrongdoing.

The case is Block v. Matesic, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 2:21-cv-61032.

For Block: Douglas Wigdor and Valdi Licul of Wigdor LLP

For Matesic et al: Avery Dial of Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck

Read more:

Brooklyn federal judge defeats misconduct case over Florida condo

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston)