Just the News reported that University of South Florida police arrested anti-abortion activist Tyler Newton on Sept. 23 near the weekly Bull Market at the Marshall Student Center plaza, then jailed him for 14 hours and issued a one-year campus ban.
On Oct. 9, the Center for American Liberty filed a federal lawsuit challenging the arrest, the no-trespass order, and campus policies that let event organizers exclude speakers from outdoor areas during reserved activities. The group was founded and previously led by Harmeet Dhillon, now Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
The case puts Florida’s 2018 Campus Free Expression Act and core First Amendment rules on outdoor campus speech in front of a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven set a two-hour evidentiary hearing for Oct. 21 after declining an immediate temporary restraining order.
Newton stood at the side of a walking path near the open-air Bull Market holding a sign showing a fetus in utero with the caption “What about her body and her rights?” He spoke with passers-by and asked questions such as “Any opinions on abortion?” A continuous 46-minute tripod video captured the encounter.
Marshall Student Center Director Matt Marshall told Newton that Bull Market organizers did not want his activity during their event and that “they have that choice.” Marshall described the space as a “limited public forum,” said Newton’s activity was “interfering with this reservation,” and offered another location before leaving to get police.
An officer told Newton, “Right now this area is reserved.” Officials pressed him for identification. When he refused, police warned of arrest for resisting without violence. Officers then arrested him on that basis and for trespassing.
"I’m not infringing on anybody’s reserved spot. I’m not blocking traffic."
Newton also said, “It’s a traditional public forum,” and told officers he was a disabled veteran who was “hurting badly” from tight cuffs, which were later loosened. The lawsuit describes him as a “disabled veteran who is medically retired” from the Army who has “committed himself to public advocacy and speech.” He is not a USF student but has a brother who attends the university. The one-year ban blocks those visits.
Newton’s lawyers said the criminal charges were dismissed on Oct. 9, the same day the Center for American Liberty sued. Defendants include Matt Marshall, USF President Moez Limayem, USF Police Chief Chris Daniels, and USF trustees.
The complaint alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Florida’s Campus Free Expression Act. That eight-year-old state law designates outdoor areas of public universities generally open to the campus community as “traditional public forums for everyone.” The suit targets policies that, as described in the filing, give event organizers power to keep people from standing and speaking in outdoor campus areas during reserved activities, and it claims an ongoing threat to Newton’s rights.
Campus speech fights keep reaching federal court and federal policy debates, including when the Trump administration tied federal college funding to academic freedom protections.
Newton sought a temporary restraining order by Oct. 13 so he could return for Bull Market dates on Oct. 14 and Oct. 21. Judge Scriven, nominated by President George W. Bush, ruled hours after the complaint and TRO motion. She pointed to the “recurring” nature of the event and said USF should first get “the opportunity to be heard and present defenses.” She scheduled the Oct. 21 hearing during the first half of that day’s Bull Market.
USF Senior Director of Media Relations Althea Johnson said by email that the university’s practice is “not to comment on pending litigation.”
Marshall applied USF public space policy treating reserved activities such as events and tabling as limits on speech in otherwise public areas. He repeated that organizers “said they do not want this activity taking place within” their reservation. Newton and his counsel counter that the location remains a traditional public forum under the Constitution and Florida law and that he was not blocking a reserved spot or traffic.
Center for American Liberty CEO Mark Trammell framed the stakes away from the underlying abortion debate.
"This case is not about whether anyone agrees with Tyler’s views on abortion."
Trammell added that the First Amendment “means very little if public officials can have someone arrested simply because others would rather not hear his message.”
How campuses and law enforcement handle contested political expression has also driven separate federal cases, including when three South Alabama students faced federal charges after campus rally posts.
Video of the USF encounter shows a young woman passer-by speaking with Newton for about 16 minutes before walking away and saying, “You’re disgusting,” while demanding he not post the conversation. Newton’s female partner and another male associate appear on the recording as well. An official told the partner the area was reserved.
Newton has described himself as an abortion abolitionist. Just the News noted he appeared in recent posts by the Florida Abolitionists Society. He referenced associates previously arrested at the Texas Alamo for similar activity, saying charges were dropped and that they were suing. Lawyer CJ Grisham, in related commentary cited in the coverage, said Texas officers there were enforcing rules from the Alamo Trust rather than ordinary state or local law. Newton’s USF lawsuit does not name Abolitionists Rising.
After returning to Florida with his wife and child, Newton asked in August for donations for recording equipment. By Sept. 29 he had posted a GiveSendGo legal-defense fundraiser. An archived view showed $875 raised as of Oct. 6. The page was later hidden but remained findable in search.
Federal power over speech disputes extends beyond universities, as when Trump barred major outlets from the White House and triggered a First Amendment clash.
The 46-minute video is central to the plaintiff’s account of the Sept. 23 orders to move, the demand for identification, and the arrest. Court papers and the linked TRO motion document the no-trespass order and the failed bid for emergency relief before the mid-October market dates. A full public docket number and the complete text of USF’s public space policy were not detailed in the initial report. The center’s online press release remained password-protected as of the night the story published on Oct. 15, 2026.
Judge Scriven’s evidentiary hearing will give USF a chance to present defenses on the forum status of the Bull Market edge, the scope of any reservation, and whether the arrest and year-long ban fit time, place, and manner rules or crossed into viewpoint-based exclusion. Newton’s team will press the traditional public forum claim under the 2018 state law and the First Amendment, plus the practical effect of a ban that keeps a non-student off campus for a year.
Parallel enforcement fights over political speech on and off campus continue elsewhere, including coverage of South Alabama students hit with federal charges after alleged Trump threats before a Mobile rally.
Authorities have not publicly released a full written order text beyond the recurring-event reasoning already described, and USF has not offered a public merits response while litigation is pending. Investigators and the court will need to determine the precise boundaries of the Sept. 23 reservation, the legal force of organizer objections in outdoor campus space, and whether the resisting and trespassing arrest can stand against the speech claims now pending.
Public universities do not get to outsource the First Amendment to whoever reserved the table. When outdoor campus ground is treated as a speech-free zone because organizers prefer silence, the law-and-order question is whether officials enforce neutral rules or other people’s comfort.
