The battle over President Donald Trump’s presidential library has spawned an unexpected subplot in Miami-Dade County. A Florida appeals court bounced a trial judge from the land‑transfer fight after she praised and hugged the plaintiff, raising doubts about her neutrality.
A Parking Lot Problem
Retired Florida International University historian Marvin Dunn sued Miami Dade College in 2025. The board had voted at a special September 23 meeting to transfer a 2.63‑acre parking lot next to the Freedom Tower in downtown Miami to the state as the site of Trump’s future presidential library, a project closely tied to the Republican former president’s legacy and championed by Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration.
He claims the board violated Florida’s Sunshine Law by using an agenda that mentioned only “potential real estate transactions.” The notice did not disclose that trustees would vote on giving away a multi‑million‑dollar parcel for the project. He also alleges the transfer went forward without adequate economic analysis or meaningful restrictions on how the land could be used.
Dunn’s suit initially led to a temporary injunction blocking the transfer. The college then held a second meeting on December 2, after giving more detailed notice and allowing four hours of public comment, before again voting unanimously to approve the transfer. The move looked like an effort to cure the alleged Sunshine‑law defect by re‑noticing the issue and voting again. It raises questions about when a second vote fixes an open‑meeting problem, how specific notice must be for major land transfers, and what valuation and use restrictions counsel should insist on when a public board conveys a politically sensitive asset.
Trustees said the original meeting had been properly noticed, but argued the second vote gave the public another opportunity to comment and could help dispose of the lawsuit. Opponents countered that the transfer still lacked sufficient guardrails and warned that the parcel could ultimately be used for for-profit purposes, such as condominiums or hotels, in addition to a presidential library bearing Trump’s name. Judge Mavel Ruiz later dissolved the injunction and dismissed Dunn’s challenge, finding that notice for the December meeting complied with the Sunshine Law. That ruling set up the judicial‑disqualification fight that followed.
How a Hug Backfired
At the December hearing, Judge Ruiz dismissed the case and, according to the college’s later filings, thanked Dunn for mortgaging his house to pursue the litigation. The judge called him “a gentleman” and “a pillar of this community,” then came down from the bench and hugged him. The college argued those actions showed bias, including apparent reliance on information outside the record.
Judge Ruiz denied the disqualification motion, and Miami Dade College then sought a writ of prohibition from the Third District Court of Appeal. Dunn countered that the college had waited too long to seek appellate relief. He also maintained that the judge treated both sides fairly, noting that she shook hands with counsel for both parties before hugging him.
The appellate court ultimately granted the writ and held that the verified motion to disqualify was legally sufficient. The motion created a well‑founded fear that the college would not receive a fair hearing. The panel did not need to find actual bias. Under the governing standard, the question was whether a reasonably prudent person would fear they could not receive a fair hearing before this judge. In the court’s view, the combination of praise for the plaintiff, reference to facts not in the record, and a visible embrace after ruling against the college was enough to require disqualification.
Lessons for the Legal World
The case underscores how courtroom remarks and gestures can become central to recusal practice. The Third District Court of Appeals did not accuse the Florida judge of bad faith, but it did draw a hard line on appearances.
For judges, the decision is a reminder that courtroom demeanor and informal comments can end up in the disqualification record. Appellate courts will scrutinize not just written orders but what a judge appears to know and say in open court. Referring to facts not in the record can invite the argument that the judge relied on information outside the case materials. Personal praise of a party can be cited as evidence of favoritism. Physical gestures such as a hug after an adverse ruling can be framed as supporting a reasonable fear of bias.
For litigators, the case offers procedural lessons on how to handle recusal issues. Lawyers need to move promptly when potentially disqualifying conduct occurs. They should describe the conduct precisely, preserve the sequence of events, and focus on the objective “reasonably prudent person” standard rather than trying to prove actual bias.
Related Resources:
- Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against WSJ Over the Epstein Birthday Letter Dismissed (for Now) (FindLaw’s Courtside)
- State Judges Are in Danger for Their Lives. Is Congress Going to Do Something About It? (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- ABA Will Get Its Day in Court as Judge Denies Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Trump Administration (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
