The University of Florida ranked No. 7 among public universities in the 2026 U.S. News & World Report's 2026 college rankings.
* The University of Florida is defending its expulsion of a law student over antisemitic social media posts, arguing his comments were a threat.
* The former student, Preston Damsky, filed a lawsuit claiming his First Amendment rights were violated and his expulsion was based on his viewpoint.
* The case tests the limits of a public university's ability to discipline student speech it considers threatening or disruptive.
The University of Florida is arguing that a former law student's expulsion over what were perceived as antisemitic posts on social media didn't violate his First Amendment rights since his comments threatened students.
The crux of UF's argument, filed Oct. 10 in the Northern District of Florida, is that Preston Damsky was disruptive to the law school's daily functioning. Damsky, 29, was banned from campus since early April. That was after he quoted a controversial historian on X, saying that "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary."
Central to Damsky's complaint, filed in September, are two main points: He was applying the logic from author Noel Ignatiev, who calls for people to "abandon thinking of themselves as white," and that UF's regulations for harassment and disruption don't apply to expression protected by the First Amendment.
But Damsky's lawsuit - which sparked coverage by The New York Times - is much more complicated than a basic free speech question.
At its core, the case tests how far a public university can go in disciplining a student for speech it deems threatening, while still upholding constitutional protections for expression. It raises thorny questions about whether Damsky's words crossed the line from offensive opinion into a "true threat," and how the First Amendment applies in higher education settings when safety and academic freedom collide.
He was thrown out of the university in August after a three-member board recommended his expulsion. Chris Summerlin, dean of students at UF, agreed with the recommendation; Damsky appealed to the school a month later and filed suit.
On Oct. 9, the day before UF filed its motion to dismiss the suit, Damsky's internal appeal was denied. UF argued in its filing that Damsky violated harassment and disruption codes of conduct codes, and that he didn't retain First Amendment rights because his post constituted a violent threat.
The university argued he knew students feared him, since someone complained about him in a town hall earlier this year, expressing fear of attending classes.
"While Damsky may have been familiar with the writings of Noel Ignatiev - not exactly a household name - most people are not. And Damsky never explained in his post that Ignatiev was not calling for violence (if that is so)," UF's filing to dismiss the lawsuit says. "Even someone familiar with Ignatiev's writings could properly regard the post as a threat.
"Damsky's threatening post caused material and substantial disruption at UF Law and for that reason, too, was not protected speech."
Anthony Sabatini, the attorney representing Damsky, called UF's response "completely ridiculous."
"This is one of the most clear instances of targeting a student based on his viewpoint that I have ever seen," Sabatini said in a text message to the USA TODAY NETWORK - Florida.
A UF representative declined comment, saying the school doesn't comment on pending litigation. Damsky's suit was assigned to Trump-appointed Chief U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor.
First Amendment experts weigh in
One of the main questions to be answered in this case is whether there is evidence of violence from Damsky, since UF points to multiple different forms of speech in its argument, including wearing a T-shirt, a social media post and a class paper, said Kevin Goldberg, an attorney and First Amendment expert at the Freedom Forum.
Goldberg said it's a high bar to determine whether speech itself falls into a true threat of violence or violence itself. He said that hate speech is often the basis for conduct that falls outside the First Amendment, like actual threats or discriminatory harassment, but the point is to look at what a person is trying to do with the speech.
He said many of the cases Florida was referring to didn't fall into the "true threats" argument, or that it was debatable whether one U.S. Supreme Court case -- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District -- even applied to universities.
In that late 1960s case, the U.S. Supreme Court said students do not lose their First Amendment right to free speech when they step on school grounds. The court, in a 7-2 decision, held that schools can limit expression only if it causes a "substantial disruption" to the educational environment.
Proving a substantial disruption in a learning environment may be tough for UF to hold up: "You've really got to have a situation where the entire campus was kind of shut down and unable to move on from this," Goldberg said.
Damsky also contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment advocacy group. Robert Shibley, FIRE's special counsel for campus advocacy, said at the time that he was "very concerned by the lack of due process" toward Damsky.
In a statement, Shibley said "nothing in UF's motion supports its claims that Damsky's speech on social media or in his papers is punishable by the First Amendment. UF is free to offer supportive measures to students and faculty members who were upset by Damsky's expression, but it is not free to punish Damsky for his opinions."
The widespead attention to UF's law school
UF described the law school to be in turmoil over Damsky's social media posts, where some students reportedly avoided signing up for classes he was in or were otherwise afraid to attend those classes.
Then The New York Times published a story, focused on Damsky being awarded a "book award" for his classwork and essay on "National Constitutionalism." The award was a recognition given to Damsky for getting the highest grade in the class.
Damsky argued that the "We the People" in the U.S. Constitution's preamble referred to white people only, so he said higher courts should reconsider amendments guaranteeing due process, equal protection and voting rights.
Outrage ensued across the country by lawmakers, law students and advocacy groups because his views were widely considered as antithetical to democratic and American values.
After months of town halls and emails, UF's interim law school dean Merritt McAlister said in a June message to law students that the school was obliged to protect First Amendment rights and academic freedom. At the same time, Damsky's speech was "threatening and substantially disruptive." McAlister didn't respond to a request for comment.
Damsky would have started his third year of law school in the fall. Some of the claims against him from the university not only focused on his X post, but also because he wore a T-shirt reading "From the river to the sea," which UF administrators called an "antisemitic message" in a letter to Damsky.
The saying is used as a political slogan referring to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, often said by backers of a unified Palestinian homeland.
This is significant in Florida, since UF is an agency of state government. State officials have consistently been intolerant for anything perceived as antisemitic, and the state government has inveighed against pro-Palestinian protests and comments.
This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at [email protected]. On X: @stephanymatat.