Students disciplined for silent anti-ICE protest at FIU file lawsuit alleging university violated their rights

A group of students at Florida International University has filed a federal lawsuit against the school and some of its top leaders, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights by punishing them for staging a silent anti-ICE protest on campus. 

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs listed are the ICEBreakers, a student-led coalition on campus, and seven individual FIU students. 

The group of students listed FIU president Jeanette Nuñez, Board of Trustees Chair Carlos Durat, and three other university administrators as defendants.

What is being alleged in the lawsuit 

The case centers around a protest that took place on March 13 during a Presidential Speaker Series event at FIU's Student Academic Success Center with Nuñez and retired baseball player Alex Rodriguez. 

Several ICEBreakers members, including the individual plaintiffs, stood up, briefly faced the audience while wearing "ICE OFF FIU" t-shirts, and then walked out. The complaint says the entire demonstration lasted less than five minutes and that no one asked the students to sit down or leave during it.

FIU police investigated the protest and referred the case to the university's Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity 10 days later. Six of the seven individual plaintiffs were ultimately found responsible for violating FIU Regulation 110, which bans protests and other expressive activities inside university buildings.

The lawsuit notes that the university's own event coordinator, Jehnny Rivera, told investigators the protest "did not disrupt the event" and that no attendees raised concerns about it. The complaint also says the administrator who investigated the case, Associate Director Amelia Rodriguez, also listed as a defendant in the suit, told students during information sessions that she was not charging them with disruptive conduct because her investigation did not support it.

Despite that, the students were still found responsible for the indoor protest ban violation. Each received a written reprimand and was ordered to submit a two-minute video explaining their understanding of Regulation 110 and how they would apply it going forward. 

Six out of the seven students noted in the suit that they appealed, and the Assistant Vice President of Student Belonging & Support, Phillip Lloyd Hamilton, denied all of the appeals on July 16. He is also listed as a defendant in the suit. 

Those six students were told that they must submit the required videos by Sept. 4. If they do not or if the university determines their submissions are inadequate, FIU said that a hold would be placed on their academic records, blocking them from registering for classes, receiving financial aid or obtaining transcripts or a diploma.

The seventh plaintiff, sophomore James Kuhlman, had his hearing postponed due to a scheduling conflict. His case is still pending.

What the plaintiffs are asking for 

The lawsuit argues that the university's blanket ban on indoor expressive activities is unconstitutional, both because it restricts speech protected under the First Amendment and because it is overbroad. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Florida, the Community Justice Project, and two other firms.

The complaint points to FIU's status as the first college or university in the country to voluntarily enroll its campus police in ICE's 287(g) program, which deputizes local officers to carry out federal immigration enforcement. FIU's police department signed the agreement in March 2025. It was finalized July 7, 2025.

The suit says ICEBreakers plans to continue indoor expressive activities during the 2026-27 academic year, including wearing "ICE OFF FIU" shirts and buttons, posting flyers and tabling inside campus buildings, but the group says it fears further enforcement of Regulation 110 if it does.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare Regulation 110(3) unconstitutional, block Nuñez and Duart from enforcing it against ICEBreakers members, and award compensatory and punitive damages against Rodriguez, Parra and Hamilton. 

You can read the full lawsuit here.