Why a judge refused to block UF from shutting down College Republicans chapter

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to block the University of Florida’s decision to deactivate its College Republicans chapter over alleged antisemitic behavior, finding the student group failed — at least for now — to show it is likely to win its constitutional challenge on First Amendment grounds.

U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker said the student organization had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits — a key requirement for a preliminary injunction. But he also emphasized that the underlying dispute remains factually unclear, describing the record so far as “at best, muddled.”

The courtroom battle traces back to early March when UF removed the College Republicans chapter from its list of registered student organizations after the Florida Federation of College Republicans — an arm of the state’s Republican party — revoked the group’s charter over what they called a “sustained pattern” of allegations of extremist and antisemitic behavior.

Those allegations, according to the federation’s notice to UF, included “the promotion of Nazi rhetoric, antisemitic and homophobic remarks, public admiration for extremist figures such as Nick Fuentes, and advocacy for anti-democratic and exclusionary ideologies such as white Christian nationalism.” The federation also cited a photo appearing to show a member of the campus chapter throwing a Heil Hitler salute.

University officials deactivated the group the same day they were notified, citing campus policies that allow suspension of student organizations when a parent or governing body withdraws recognition or when groups violate state law. UF also pointed to a Florida statute restricting the use of political party names without authorization, arguing the chapter could no longer operate under the “College Republicans” name once its charter was revoked.

Walker’s ruling did not address the merits of the case in full, but found that the plaintiffs had not met the high bar required to justify judicial intervention at this early stage.

Still, he noted that the evidentiary record contains competing accounts that raise unresolved questions, including whether the Florida Federation of College Republicans had clear authority over the UF chapter and whether the university’s actions were a neutral application of policy or an unconstitutional response to protected political expression.

Judge: evidence ‘muddled’

At the center of the dispute is disagreement over the structure of the College Republicans organization and who had authority to revoke the UF chapter’s status.

University attorneys argue the decision was based on longstanding policies governing student organizations, not ideology. In court filings, lawyers for UF also pointed to a little-known Florida law restricting use of a political party’s name without authorization — an issue it said arose once the chapter lost its state GOP-issued charter.

The student group’s attorney, former Republican lawmaker Anthony Sabatini, countered that the university’s decision was based on a flawed and confusing chain of authority, relying heavily on an outside political organization whose role is now in dispute.

Sabatini said UF improperly deferred to the Florida Federation of College Republicans and punished students for protected political expression, including conduct that may have occurred off campus. He also disputed that the UF chapter was even affiliated with the federation, saying it instead aligned with a rival national organization.

To bolster that claim, Sabatini provided the court with a sworn declaration from Republican Party of Florida Chairman Evan Power, who said that while the state party allows the federation to use the “Republican” name, it does not give the group authority to decide which organizations may use it.

“Such authority belongs solely to the [Republican Party of Florida],” Power wrote.

In an interview with the Herald/Times, Sabatini called UF’s legal argument “totally absurd” and said it hinged on a state law he described as “unconstitutional on its face” and “not a real law.”

Sabatini called the university’s position a “pretext to get rid of a club that they found to be troublesome,” he said. “This is the most absurd thing I probably ever worked on six and a half years as a lawyer. It’s so weird and confusing that I think the judge just hesitated to make a decision.”

UF declined to comment after Tuesday’s ruling.

This story was originally published April 21, 2026 at 2:07 PM.