Millions of college students were sent home during COVID-19. No one, not even established institutions, could have prepared for such an event. The duty of a college is to provide educational services for their students- that’s what they pay for, that’s what they expect. So, students have every right to sue if their college doesn’t provide the services they pay for, right? 

The case lies before the Florida Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on June 5th of this year (2024). Anthony Rojas sued the University of Florida in 2021, after being sent home to online schooling during the pandemic. He was still paying normal tuition and normal fees, but receiving none of the on-campus amenities. He argued he was within his rights to sue. According to Rojas’s lawyers, this is a matter of contract law: whether or not a contract was signed between Rojas (and all of the university’s students) that compensated them for a lack of on-campus resources. If such a contract was signed, Rojas would be entitled to reimbursement. 

It’s not as cut and dry, however. The UF lawyers are arguing that the documents that Rojas provided did not meet the standards of an expressed contract. If we gave this case to Rojas and his team, similarly, all schools across the state would have to reimburse every student for COVID-19 fees. Each public school has its own contracts, own fees, each with its own court case. There are more pressing legal and constitutional matters at stake, though. 

This case first went to a trial court, which then went to the First District Court of Appeals, which invoked the sovereign immunity principle in its opinion. They argued that the University of Florida, being an extension of the state, is immune to liability. Rojas’s attorneys argued that, if entered into a contract, the state (and ultimately the University of Florida) waive rights to sovereign immunity. I agree with the Rojas’s attorneys on this matter. 

The decision is up to the Florida Supreme Court. If it was me, and if I sat on the justice panel, as a student, I wouldn’t look too deep into the contract aspect, even if that’s what matters here. If it’s indiscernible whether or not a contract was signed, if there are convincing arguments on both sides that a contract could have or couldn’t have existed, the benefit should go to Rojas. They should grant his petition, award compensation for excess fees, but set a legal precedent on what defines a contract. 

The reasoning behind this was the intent of both parties. There was clear and obvious recognition that students would be compensated if they were paying for something that they weren’t using, similarly, a clear and obvious understanding that the school would have to reimburse students if they no longer provided pre-paid services. This is just a natural, de facto intention, even if an express contract wasn’t directly signed. 

In the future, though, the court needs to set the precedent. They need to issue this in their opinion, that there needs to be an expressly written contract when paid-for services aren’t being provided. Again, no one could prepare for such a tragedy, but that’s what precautionary contracts are for. 

Rojas filed a reasonable claim, and I think the appeals court made a dangerous error. We should hold our governments liable, especially if there was an intentional and mutually understood agreement in which documents were signed or exchanged. I am excited to see what the Supreme Court decides.