MIAMI — Four Florida International University students who were suspended or expelled over private group chats containing racist remarks and references to violence are taking their fight to federal court Wednesday, arguing that the university violated their First Amendment rights by punishing speech that, however offensive, was constitutionally protected.

The two-day trial before Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami will determine whether FIU had the legal authority to discipline the students for messages exchanged in private conversations or whether the sanctions crossed the constitutional limits on a public university’s power to regulate expression.

Among the messages cited in court filings were calls for the killing of Black people, including “Kill negros soon?” and “Total negro death.” Another student wrote about the violent eradication and sexual assault of an entire racial group, using a derogatory term to describe its members.

The conversations, which became public in March of this year, also included references to violence against specific locations and people. One student wrote that someone should “Swiss cheese the professor,” later explaining that he meant “Putting holes in them via means of firearm.” The same student suggested, “Let’s go blow up dolphin mall with an explosive device or something.”

The lawsuit pits four students — Abel Carvajal, Dariel Gonzalez, Ethan Ratchkauskas and Dante Mojena — against FIU President Jeanette Nuñez, who is being sued in her official capacity.

The penalties varied considerably. Carvajal, a law student who created and administered one of the group chats, was suspended for two years, until May 2028. Ratchkauskas was expelled after the university said he was responsible for personal abuse, assisting and endangerment, while Mojena received a suspension lasting approximately six months, through Dec. 10.

Gonzalez was initially suspended over violations involving abusive statements, endangerment, drugs and alcohol. He was subsequently expelled in July after university officials determined that he had violated his suspension by continuing to submit assignments through FIU’s online learning system.

The university maintains that it acted to protect campus safety and address threatening conduct, while the students argue that their statements did not constitute genuine threats or substantially disrupt university operations.

At stake is whether the university can continue enforcing the disciplinary sanctions against the four students.

Racist messages, references to violence

According to court filings, the controversy involved at least two group chats with overlapping participants. One operated during September and October 2025, while another contained messages exchanged later that year.

FIU police obtained messages from the first chat in October 2025, and university officials received material from the second in February 2026, according to Nuñez’s attorneys.

The Miami Herald published excerpts from the communications on March 4, bringing national attention to the controversy. The university subsequently announced that it had reviewed more than 1,200 pages of evidence and initiated disciplinary proceedings.

In a March 10 statement cited in the lawsuit, Nuñez declared that FIU and its Board of Trustees “will not accept, tolerate, or condone any form of racism and antisemitism at FIU.”

The students’ attorneys argue that the messages must be evaluated in their original conversational context and that each participant should be held responsible only for his own statements and conduct.

Suspensions and expulsions

FIU charged nine students with violations of its Student Conduct and Honor Code. Seven were found responsible, while two were cleared.

Four of those disciplined brought the federal lawsuit.

Carvajal was charged with “assisting” because he created and managed a group chat in which other participants posted statements FIU considered threatening.

Following an April 28 disciplinary hearing, the university suspended him from May 11, 2026, through May 11, 2028. He was also ordered to prepare a life-goals action plan and reflection paper.

FIU argues that Carvajal had administrative control over the conversation, including the ability to delete messages and remove participants, making him responsible for facilitating violations of the student code. His attorneys dispute that his role as administrator established responsibility for threats allegedly made by others.

Ratchkauskas was found responsible for personal abuse, assisting and endangerment and was expelled effective May 29. Mojena was suspended from June 2 through Dec. 10 after being found responsible for personal abuse.

Gonzalez’s case involved additional disciplinary allegations unrelated to the racist messages. FIU initially suspended him after finding him responsible for violations including personal abuse, endangerment and drug- and alcohol-related misconduct.

He was subsequently accused of violating the terms of his suspension by continuing to submit online assignments through the university’s Canvas system. Following a separate disciplinary proceeding, FIU expelled him effective July 1.

The university maintains that Gonzalez’s drug, alcohol and failure-to-comply violations independently justified disciplinary action. His attorneys argue that those allegations do not resolve whether FIU also punished him for protected speech.

All four students unsuccessfully appealed their disciplinary decisions within the university.

University cites fear and disruption

In an Oct. 9 court filing, Nuñez’s attorneys rejected the suggestion that FIU disciplined the students simply because their statements were racist, antisemitic or politically objectionable.

“FIU brought individualized charges under particular provisions of its Student Conduct and Honor Code and adjudicated each through a separate hearing that produced different charges, different findings, and different sanctions,” the document states.

According to the university’s proposed findings, FIU received more than 60 incident reports concerning the communications, along with numerous telephone calls. Students reported feeling threatened or afraid to be on campus.

University officials also held eight meetings with student organization leaders to address concerns, according to the filing. FIU contends that it devoted considerable resources to responding to complaints, assisting affected students and managing the controversy.

Those consequences are central to the university’s defense. Its attorneys argue that the messages created a substantial disruption and raised legitimate safety concerns, bringing them within recognized limits on student speech.

The students challenge that interpretation, contending that the university has not established that their individual statements constituted legally unprotected threats or caused the level of disruption required to justify punishment.

The distinction is significant. The First Amendment protects offensive and hateful expression, but it does not protect true threats of violence. Courts have also recognized circumstances in which educational institutions may restrict student speech that materially and substantially disrupts their operations.

The trial will require Altonaga to evaluate the students’ statements in context, the university’s evidence of disruption and the relationship between each student’s conduct and the punishment imposed.

Free speech claim

The case has already produced an important ruling.

On Sept. 14, Altonaga rejected FIU’s attempt to dismiss the students’ First Amendment claim against Nuñez in her official capacity.

But the judge dismissed a separate First Amendment claim against Nuñez personally, finding that the students had not sufficiently alleged her direct participation in the challenged disciplinary decisions.

She also dismissed Gonzalez’s due-process claim, concluding that he had an available avenue for reviewing his disciplinary case in Florida state court but chose not to pursue it.

The September ruling did not determine whether FIU violated the students’ free-speech rights.

Altonaga ruled that the dispute required a more developed factual record, particularly because the university’s earlier submissions selectively reproduced statements without providing their complete conversational context.

Both sides submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Oct. 22, offering sharply different interpretations of the evidence and the constitutional standards governing the case.

The students are seeking relief from the disciplinary sanctions, while Nuñez’s attorneys want the court to uphold the university’s decisions and reject the First Amendment challenge.

Because the proceedings are a bench trial, Altonaga will decide the case without a jury.

Her decision could determine whether the four students obtain relief from their suspensions and expulsions and clarify how constitutional protections apply when offensive or allegedly threatening statements made in private online conversations spill into a public university community.

_____

©2026 Miami Herald. Visit miamiherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.