Florida Judge Blocks $67M Miami Land Transfer for Trump Library Over Sunshine Law Violations

October 15, 2025
Florida Judge Blocks $67M Miami Land Transfer for Trump Library Over Sunshine Law Violations
  • A Florida judge has temporarily halted the transfer of nearly three acres of prime downtown Miami land, valued at over $67 million, intended for Donald Trump's future presidential library, citing procedural violations of Florida's open government law.

  • The lawsuit was filed by Marvin Dunn, who argued that the college's Board of Trustees failed to provide proper notice for the meeting where they decided to transfer the land, violating the Sunshine Law.

  • The court's focus was on transparency and the public's right to oversight, with attorney Richard Brodsky emphasizing that the ruling was not politically motivated.

  • The judge's decision leaves open the possibility for further legal actions or challenges regarding the land transfer and the library project.

  • This legal development occurs amidst ongoing scrutiny and legal discussions surrounding the development of the Trump library in Miami.

  • The ruling highlights how legal challenges can delay or prevent development projects like presidential libraries on specific sites.

  • Further legal proceedings are expected to determine the final outcome of the land transfer and its implications for the project.

  • The property, located on Biscayne Boulevard, is highly valuable and considered one of the last undeveloped lots in the area, with experts suggesting its value could increase significantly.

  • The judge's decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to present sufficient evidence to support an injunction, making the ruling temporary.

  • This legal action underscores ongoing disputes over the Trump library project and related land use issues in Miami.

  • Judge Mavel Ruiz expressed concern that the plaintiff, Marvin Dunn, was likely to win the case, citing unreasonable notice as a key issue.

  • The college's attorneys argued that the law only required sufficient notice and questioned Dunn's political motives, while Dunn's attorneys emphasized the public's right to transparency given the land's significance.

Summary based on 20 sources


Get a daily email with more US News stories

More Stories