The legal challenge was filed by Marvin Dunn, a Miami-based activist and historian, who contends that Miami Dade College violated state transparency laws by failing to provide adequate public notice before its September 23 meeting. The lawsuit argues that the decision to gift such a valuable public asset required greater scrutiny and public participation.
“The people have a right to know what they’re going to decide to do when the transaction is so significant, so unusual and deprives the students and the college of this land,” said Richard Brodsky, Dunn’s attorney. He emphasized that the issue was about government accountability, not political partisanship.
Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law mandates that decisions by public institutions must be made openly, with proper notice and opportunity for public input. The suit claims that by holding a “special meeting” without sufficient notice, the college’s trustees deprived residents of their right to attend and voice concerns over the handover of public property.
The case also touches on the broader question of how public institutions manage their assets, particularly when political or high-profile figures are involved. Critics have described the deal as a potential misuse of state resources, while supporters argue that hosting a presidential library could bring cultural and economic benefits to Miami.
Judge Ruiz’s temporary injunction prevents any further transfer or development activity until a full hearing can determine whether the process complied with Florida law. While the Trump Presidential Library Foundation has not commented publicly, the ruling adds new uncertainty to the former president’s plans for his library — and underscores growing tensions over government transparency and the use of public lands for politically sensitive projects.
The next hearing in the case is expected to clarify whether the college board’s decision will be voided entirely, or if the land deal can proceed after additional public review.