MIAMI — Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is leading the charge to defend Miami Dade College in higher court from allegations it violated the state’s Sunshine Law, raising the stakes in a case involving Donald Trump’s presidential library that could have sweeping implications for the future of government transparency.

Uthmeier’s office filed a notice of appeal Monday, seeking to overturn a Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge’s ruling temporarily blocking the college from giving away valuable downtown land for the construction of Trump’s presidential library.

If Uthmeier is successful before Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, open-government advocates say it could set new legal precedent undermining public access to information about government meetings in the state.

“If the AG gets his way, then it will embolden every government agency in Florida to be vague, secretive and obfuscate important matters that they’re going to discuss at their meetings,” said David Cuillier, the director of the Freedom of Information Project in the University of Florida’s Brechner Center.

“This has huge ramifications for the ability of the people to know what their government is doing,” he added. “I think all Floridians should be embarrassed that the state AG would be fighting for obfuscation and secrecy.”

No one at the college confirmed its Sept. 23 vote was about the presidential library until afterward, when Uthmeier released a promotional video filmed in Miami. Uthmeier received Trump’s endorsement in his attorney general race a few weeks later.

Uthmeier’s involvement in the case now — his office and the Trump-linked boutique Miami law firm Continental PLCC are leading the college’s defense — marks a sharp departure from attorneys’ general typical role in open government disputes, experts say.

Historically, Florida’s attorney general has defended the law: “The Attorney General’s Office has consistently sought to safeguard Florida’s pioneering Government-in-the-Sunshine laws,” Uthmeier’s own state website notes. They typically give advisory opinions on potential Sunshine Law violations, which are powerful, but not legally binding.

Uthmeier’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The attorney general’s role in Miami Dade College’s defense gives him the power to shape new case law that narrows the scope of public access to meetings through a state appeals court ruling — a more powerful force in future Sunshine Law cases than advisory opinions, according to Florida Center for Government Accountability Director Barbara Petersen.

“Here we have the man who’s supposed to be defending our law and defending our rights under the law working to narrow that right of access,” Petersen said. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Petersen is the former director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, which each year publishes a Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual in cooperation with the Attorney General’s Office. She said Uthmeier fought against government transparency in the past when he was the governor’s chief of staff, pointing to a lawsuit brought by her organization in which Uthmeier argued that his text messages related to flights sending immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard shouldn’t be public record.

“Given what this attorney general has done, it doesn’t surprise me, but I’m appalled by it,” Petersen said.

A quick and secretive meeting

The lawsuit, brought by historian Marvin Dunn, alleges Miami Dade College did not give “reasonable notice” under Florida law of its special Sept. 23 meeting called to give its Biscayne Boulevard property to the state at no cost. A week later, a state board including Uthmeier, voted to give the 2.6-acre property to Trump’s library foundation.

The college called its meeting after a representative of the Florida Cabinet emailed MDC President Madeline Pumariega to say the office “supports the conveyance” of the college’s Biscayne Boulevard property. But the college’s advance notice of the meeting mentioned only “potential real estate transactions.”

It did not describe which plot of land was under consideration or the intended purpose of the transaction, leaving the public in the dark. The college also ignored questions from the Miami Herald the day before the vote about whether trustees were planning to give away the college’s downtown land to be used for Trump’s library.

A Miami Dade Circuit Court judge blocked the college from transferring the land last month as the case proceeds.

“There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,” Judge Mavel Ruiz wrote in a signed, written version of the temporary injunction filed this week. “The requirement of open meetings of government bodies, such as the District Board of Miami Dade College, is a bedrock principle of Florida.”

Ruiz noted that the college could easily render Dunn’s lawsuit moot by volunteering to do what he is requesting in his lawsuit: holding a new, publicly noticed meeting to give the public the chance to weigh in on the land transfer.

Uthmeier has called Dunn’s case a “bogus lawsuit.” Attorneys with Continental PLCC have argued in lower court that a ruling in favor of Dunn would create new case law by instilling broader provisions for public disclosure than is required under the Sunshine Laws, which does not define “reasonable notice.” They argued the college was only required to provide logistical details about its Sept. 23 meeting — not specifics about what would be discussed.

“I understand that they’d like that to be the state of the law, but it’s just not there,” Jesus Suarez, an attorney representing Miami Dade College, told the judge last month.

In a hearing last month, Judge Ruiz roundly rejected that idea that she’d be setting new case law. The Third District Court of Appeal, where almost half of the judges were appointed by DeSantis, could see it differently.

Miami Dade College’s trustees have not indicated any plans to vote differently if they are forced by a judge to vote again, though a poll of Miami-Dade voters conducted by the local firm Bendixen & Amandi International found a majority would prefer the college keep the land in its possession.

But the politics of the library’s figurehead aside — with the attorney general taking the case to higher court, open government advocates fear ripple effects of government secrecy statewide.

“This is definitely a unique situation given who’s involved: president Trump,” said Cuillier the UF expert. “There’s a lot of things going on here, but I’m afraid the public’s right to know is going to be a casualty when it’s all said and done.”

©2025 Miami Herald. Visit at miamiherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.