A Florida federal judge blocked a Miami college's rule restricting protest activities after it was used to discipline several students who staged a brief public demonstration against immigration tactics, finding that the regulation likely violates the First Amendment. 

The group, ICEBreakers, is a student-led coalition formed in August 2025 to protest Florida International University's partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the complaint says.

U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Becerra issued a preliminary injunction Sunday in Miami federal court, granting the students' motion that temporarily blocks an FIU regulation prohibiting indoor protest activities. The judge found that the students who staged a silent dissent against a partnership between campus police and federal immigration officials during a speaker event this year didn't "materially" disrupt school activities.

"At this stage," Judge Becerra said, "plaintiffs are substantially likely to prevail on their claim that Regulation 110(3) impermissibly prohibits constitutionally protected speech by failing to limit its prohibition to speech that causes substantial disruption. Because plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims given that the regulation prohibits indoor activities without any regard for whether the activity materially disrupts the school's operations, the court grants the motion." 

Seven students and the ICEBreakers group sued FIU this month in Miami federal court, alleging the college violated their First Amendment right to protest after a silent demonstration in March. 

On March 13, the students attended a live discussion between retired professional baseball player Alex Rodriguez and FIU President Jeanette Nuñez inside a college auditorium. The plaintiffs wore T-shirts stating "ICE OFF FIU," and at one point they stood up to face the audience for about two minutes before walking out. The demonstration was a protest against the college's 287(g) agreement with ICE, which deputizes campus police to arrest anyone believed to be violating federal immigration law. 

No one in the audience asked the plaintiffs to leave or complained, and it's possible that Nuñez and Rodriguez didn't even notice the protest, according to Judge Becerra. 

Afterward, college officials ultimately determined that the students violated the campus regulation on indoor protest activities. One student, Andrew Caro, previously told Law360 that he and other plaintiffs were required to submit a two-minute video explaining their understanding with college protest policies or else be prevented from registering for classes. 

Along with their lawsuit, the plaintiffs brought an expedited motion for a preliminary injunction to block the campus protest regulation, stating that they're at risk of suffering irreparable harm because the upcoming semester was about to start. 

Responding to the injunction request, FIU said in a court filing that the school is allowed to place "reasonable" regulations on indoor protest that don't violate students' First Amendment rights. 

The college argued that its regulation was appropriate because the auditorium was designated as a "limited public" forum that's reserved for specific groups and discussion topics. 

"The speaker series that plaintiffs disrupted through their demonstration was designated for the purpose of presenting on the limited topics discussed — not for general demonstration," FIU said. 

Plaintiffs hit back, saying FIU not only failed to uphold its own mission of allowing free expression on its campus, but the law as well. The students cited the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held there was no evidence that students who wore black armbands to peacefully protest the Vietnam War "materially disrupt[ed] classwork or involve[ed] substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." 

Judge Becerra agreed with the plaintiffs, saying in the injunction order that the Tinker standard still applies nearly 60 years later. 

"Indeed, as was the case here, a protest can be peaceful, but still violate Regulation 110(3)," Judge Becerra said, citing FIU's argument. "A student can wear a hat, a t-shirt, or as they did in Tinker, an armband to protest. In any event, the argument is neither here nor there because even if the regulation was attempting to limit only disruptive activity, disruptive activity alone fails constitutional scrutiny."

Caro, a senior music education major and the son of Mexican immigrants, issued a statement through his lawyers on Monday stating that he and ICEBreakers will continue to protest until FIU's agreement with ICE is dissolved. 

"FIU's discomfort with our message does not override our right to protest against the university's 287(g) agreement — nor will it get us to stop," Caro said. "Our protest did not derail the event, nor did it impact anyone else's rights. It was non-disruptive and fully protected speech."

Counsel for FIU and university representatives did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment Monday. 

The plaintiffs are represented by Nicholas L.V. Warren, Caroline A. McNamara, Michelle Morton, Amy Godshall and Daniel B. Tilley of the ACLU Foundation of Florida, by Adam C. Saper, Miriam F. Haskell and Alana Greer of the Community Justice Project, by James Slater of Slater Legal PLLC and by Reid Levin of Reid Levin PLLC. 

The defendants are represented by Mohammad O. Jazil of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC. 

The case is ICEBreakers et al. v. Nunez et al., case number 1:26-cv-25395, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

--Editing by Lief Nielsen.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.