Sophia Baltodano | Staff Writer
A federal judge has granted six FIU students a preliminary injunction against Florida International University, temporarily preventing the university from enforcing its indoor expressive-activity policy against them as their First Amendment lawsuit continues.
U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Becerra granted the students’ request in Icebreakers v. Nunez following a hearing on Thursday in federal court. The students are challenging FIU Regulation 110(3), which they argue was unconstitutionally used to punish them for participating in a silent protest against the university’s agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The case began after a March 13 campus demonstration in which students stood wearing “ICE OFF FIU” shirts and then silently left the event. FIU later found seven students responsible for violating its rules on indoor expressive activities and required them to record two-minute videos explaining their understanding of the regulation. The students appealed the disciplinary findings internally, but their appeal was denied.
Before filing the lawsuit, the students had also tried to communicate directly with FIU administrators about their concerns. Kaitlyn Daly, one of the students involved, said ICEBreakers had repeatedly attempted to meet with FIU President Jeanette Nuñez and hold a town hall before taking the dispute to court.
“Because this whole time, and then ever since like Icebreakers was founded, we’ve been trying to contact Nunez and have a conversation with her, to have a town hall, talk to them, and they refuse to listen to us,” Daly said.
The preliminary injunction now prevents FIU officials from enforcing the challenged regulation against six of the students while the lawsuit proceeds. The ruling does not end the case or constitute a final decision on the students’ broader First Amendment claims.
For the students, the injunction provides temporary relief from the disciplinary consequences that led them to court in the first place; one requirement is that the students submit a video speaking on their understanding of FIU policies.
Katia Trapati, one of the students, said her peers did not view the required video as an admission that their protest was wrong.
“Our plan for the video has always kind of been that we would record it, but we wouldn’t apologize for our actions,” Trapati said.
Andrew Caro, current leader of FIU Dream Defenders, said the students’ priority was getting the disciplinary charges removed rather than simply avoiding the required videos. “My personal expectation from this court proceeding is that the hope and the desire is to have FIU drop the charges that they’ve imposed on us,” Caro said.
During the federal hearing, the students argued that their demonstration was protected by the First Amendment because it was peaceful and did not materially disrupt the event.
“Honestly, what we did was completely non-disruptive, completely in line with that Supreme Court case,” Trapati said. She said she believed the students’ actions were consistent with the Supreme Court precedent cited by their attorneys.
The students’ position has received support from some FIU faculty. Tania Cepero-Lopez, an FIU faculty member and ICEBreakers adviser, said she has worked with the organization since its formation after first meeting students organizing against the 287(g) agreement. She said that she’d been with them from the beginning, getting the RSOC (Registered Student Organizations Council) status as well as organizing and tabling.
Cepero-Lopez criticized FIU’s handling of the students’ disciplinary cases, saying the university’s policy leaves too much room for interpretation.
“They have been selectively imposing punishment on freedom of speech, on expression of free speech, on campus, in ways that are clearly against the law,” Cepero-Lopez said.
She also said the FIU Faculty Senate and faculty union chapter have passed resolutions opposing the 287(g) agreement and expressing opposition to the disciplinary proceedings against the students.
Caro said the students have also received support from organizations outside FIU, including youth activist and immigrant-rights groups. He said he has participated in town halls and panels where students discussed their experiences with the disciplinary process and FIU’s agreement with ICE.
Although the injunction is a significant development for the students, the lawsuit itself is still moving forward. The court will continue considering whether FIU’s use of Regulation 110(3) against the students violated their First Amendment rights.
Cepero-Lopez said she hopes the case ultimately establishes broader protections for student expression on campus.
“I hope the students can set a precedent that free speech is a priority and I’m like I understand what you mean because low-key you have to answer always you always have to be available you know at FIU, that campus is a place for free expression of ideas,” she said. “This is something that I think protects all viewpoints, all perspectives, not just these students per se.”
Currently, the students are protected from the shift enforcement of the challenged regulation while their federal lawsuit continues.
About Post Author
