Judge denies UF College Republicans’ motion for a preliminary injunction against UF

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – On April 21, Judge Mark Walker denied a motion from the UF College Republicans to issue a temporary injunction against the University of Florida’s (UF) decision to deactivate the club.

On March 14, 2026, UF announced that the UF College Republicans (UFCR) student organization was deactivated because the Florida Federated College Republicans (FFCR) revoked its charter.

UFCR, represented by Anthony Sabatini’s firm, immediately filed a lawsuit, claiming viewpoint discrimination; UFCR claimed that the deactivation was directly related to their March 11 event with gubernatorial candidate James Fishback (click here for our article on the deactivation).

UFCR’s complaint argued that the deactivation was based on a false pretext and claimed that UF’s decision was based on complaints that “[i]n 2025, a member of UFCR expressed a viewpoint off-campus that was alleged by some to be anti-Semitic” and “UF’s action was taken because of opposition to or disapproval of the perceived viewpoint. After the deactivation, UF sought to justify its unlawful decision by providing a false pretext as a basis, asserting that it had acted at the behest of a third-party group, the Florida Federation of College Republicans (FFCR), a group with no authority over or affiliation with UFCR.”

In its brief opposing the motion for the preliminary injunction, UF wrote that it deactivated the club “because it had been informed by the Florida Federation of College Republicans (“FFCR”)—an organization with permission from the Republican Party to use the name of that political party—that FFCR had revoked [UFCR’s] charter as a local chapter of FFCR. And, under UF’s rules, an RSO (registered student organization) may be deactivated if its parent organization revokes its charter. The deactivation of [UFCR] as a registered student organization at UF was necessary because, without a charter from FFCR, [UFCR] had no legal authorization to use the name of a political party.”

UF’s brief continued, “After its deactivation, [UFCR] has stated that it is affiliated, not with FFCR, but with another parent organization, College Republicans of America. [UFCR] has not, however, provided any evidence that this organization is authorized to use the name of the Republican Party. Thus, this new affiliation does not enable UF to register [UFCR] under the name ‘College Republicans.'”

UF’s brief also refers to multiple years in which UFCR’s registration forms referred to the FFCR and a sentence in a draft constitution that referred to the club’s “Political Director as being the officer ‘responsible for maintaining a healthy relationship with … Florida Federation of College Republicans.'”

A supporting declaration from James Tyger, Assistant Vice President for Student Life at UF, provided evidence that FFCR disaffiliated from UFCR on March 4, before the March 11 event that featured James Fishback. A letter from FFCR, dated August 21, 2025, is also included to reinforce FFCR’s claim that it is the chartering organization for UFCR; that letter states that “FFCR is proud to continue UF CRs’ affiliation”.

In his order, Judge Walker wrote that he denied the motion for a temporary injunction because UFCR does not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case: “Here, the record the parties presented at the preliminary-injunction stage is, at best, muddled. For example, [UFCR] has presented some evidence that allows this Court to draw inferences that may undermine [UF’s] stated reasons for deactivating [UFCR] as a registered student organization, including, but not limited to, the asserted hastiness of the decision-making process and the apparent lack of investigation regarding whether Florida Federation of College Republicans was actually [UFCR’s] parent organization. However, the record, at this juncture, also includes ample evidence that permits reasonable inferences drawn in [UF’s] favor regarding the deactivation decision. Ultimately, given this record, [UFCR] has not met its burden of persuasion to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to warrant the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction.”

In an April 22 post on X, Sabatini wrote that the parties have agreed to a June trial: “UF muddled the legal waters enough to evade a preliminary injunction due to the more exacting legal standard at that early stage, but we are confident that UF’s illegal actions will be made clear at trial.” The next phase begins May 26, when discovery is due.