On October 15, 2025, a Florida courtroom became the stage for a high-profile dispute over a prime piece of Miami real estate, as Judge Mavel Ruiz of the 11th Judicial Circuit temporarily blocked the transfer of nearly three acres of land from Miami Dade College to the state of Florida for the proposed Donald J. Trump Presidential Library. The decision, which has reverberated across local and national headlines, hinges not on political leanings but on the state’s sacrosanct open government laws—and the question of whether the public was properly informed about the fate of a property valued at more than $67 million.
The controversy began brewing in September, when Miami Dade College’s District Board of Trustees convened to discuss, as the official agenda put it, “potential real estate transactions.” The board’s September 23 meeting, which was not livestreamed—unlike every other meeting held that year—culminated in a unanimous vote to give away the 2.6-acre parcel, currently used as a parking lot at the Wolfson Campus, to the state. The plan: the state would then hand the land over to the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation, a private entity led by Eric Trump, Michael Boulos (husband of Tiffany Trump), and attorney James Kiley.
According to The Associated Press, the land sits adjacent to Miami’s historic Freedom Tower, a site steeped in Cuban-American heritage. The college’s decision to transfer the property “for nothing,” as described in court filings, stunned many. Some real estate experts have suggested the parcel—one of the last undeveloped lots on Biscayne Boulevard—could fetch hundreds of millions of dollars on the open market, far exceeding its official $67 million valuation by the Miami-Dade County property appraiser.
The legal challenge was spearheaded by Marvin Dunn, a political activist and respected local historian. Dunn’s lawsuit, filed on October 6, argued that the college’s board had violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Act, which requires government bodies to provide “reasonable notice” of meetings and decisions that affect the public. The notice for the September 23 meeting, Dunn contended, was woefully inadequate—it failed to specify which property was being discussed or the extraordinary nature of the transaction. “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,” Dunn’s attorney Richard Brodsky told The Associated Press prior to the ruling.
Judge Ruiz, in her ruling, agreed that the notice was insufficient. “The court does not believe that the notice was reasonable,” she stated, as reported by The New York Times. Ruiz emphasized that while Florida law does not demand exhaustive details in public notices, it does require “fair and reasonable” disclosure—especially for decisions with sweeping implications. She further clarified, “This is not an easy decision. This is not a case, at least for this court, rooted in politics.” The judge ordered a pause on the land transfer, but left the door open for the college to issue a new, more transparent notice and hold another vote if it chooses.
Attorneys for Miami Dade College disputed allegations of wrongdoing. Jesus Suarez, representing the college, argued, “There is no requirement under Florida law that there be specificity on notice, because those trustees can come into that room and talk to each other about whatever they wish.” The college’s legal team insisted that the board had complied with the law, noting that a request from the Executive Office of the Governor to transfer the land was received and a meeting notice was posted a week in advance. Still, the absence of specifics—and the lack of a livestream—became central to the court’s finding.
The college also raised concerns about the financial impact of the injunction, estimating that delays could cost up to $300,000. Meanwhile, the institution maintains it had “no immediate plan” for the land beyond its use as a parking lot, a point that has done little to quell public outcry over the potential giveaway of such a valuable asset.
The political dimension of the case is impossible to ignore, even as the court sought to sidestep partisanship. Governor Ron DeSantis, who led the push to secure the Trump library for Florida, hailed the board’s original decision. “Having the Trump Presidential Library in Miami will be good for Florida, for the city, and for Miami Dade College,” DeSantis said in a September statement. “No state has supported the President’s agenda more than the Free State of Florida, and I was proud to spearhead the successful effort to house this historic presidential library right here in his home state.” His remarks were echoed by Eric Trump, who proclaimed on social media, “Consistent with our [family’s] DNA, this will be one of the most beautiful buildings ever built, an Icon on the Miami skyline.”
However, public opinion in Miami-Dade County appears to be firmly against the transfer. According to a poll cited by local news station WLRN, nearly three-quarters of county residents opposed the college’s decision to give the state its land. The poll underscores the deep divisions and high stakes surrounding the project, which some see as a potential boon for the city’s profile and others as an unjustifiable loss of public resources.
The legal wrangling has also highlighted a broader trend: Florida’s recent legislative efforts to clear a path for the state’s first presidential library. In April, lawmakers passed a statute barring counties and municipalities from enacting or enforcing measures related to presidential libraries unless authorized by federal law, according to Florida Politics. The Trump Foundation has reportedly considered other sites in Florida, including Florida International University and Florida Atlantic University, the latter of which offered a 100-year lease at no cost.
For now, the fate of the Miami site remains uncertain. The college has indicated plans to appeal Judge Ruiz’s ruling, while also retaining the option to restart the process with a new, more detailed public notice. The lawsuit names Miami Dade College, its district board of trustees, and several individual members as defendants, with only one trustee—Jose Felix Diaz—not named in the suit, according to The Wall Street Journal.
As the legal dust settles, the case stands as a vivid illustration of the friction between public transparency, political ambition, and the stewardship of public assets. Whether Miami will ultimately host the Trump Presidential Library—or whether the parcel will remain a parking lot, or become something else entirely—remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the people of Miami-Dade, and indeed all Floridians, will be watching closely as the next chapter unfolds.
