Following Judge Presnell’s earlier denial of Councilman Langevin’s emergency motion, the court has now ordered the City of Palm Bay to respond to a revised filing. The City must reply by November 17, after Langevin serves the order by November 6 and certifies service by November 7. The new order does not overturn the prior denial but allows the case to proceed under standard procedures.
Palm Bay City Councilman Chandler Langevin has suffered his first setback in federal court.
- Advertisement -
Judge Gregory A. Presnell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has denied Langevin’s emergency motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to block enforcement of the city’s censure resolution.
The ruling, issued Monday, comes just two weeks after the Palm Bay City Council formally censured Langevin for making anti-Indian social-media posts and for using official city letterhead to advocate for the pardon of a convicted extremist.
- Advertisement -
The Court’s Reasoning
Judge Presnell explained that although Langevin’s filing was labeled an “Emergency Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” it was filed ex parte — without giving the City of Palm Bay notice or an opportunity to respond.
- Advertisement -
Federal and local court rules only permit ex parte temporary restraining orders when there is a true emergency and “extraordinary circumstances not requiring notice.”
The judge ruled that Langevin failed to show any such emergency and that his filing did not meet the procedural standards required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
“Plaintiff has not established such circumstance here,” Presnell wrote, adding that the motion “does not comport with the requirements for a temporary restraining order.”
What Happens Next
Because the motion was procedurally defective, the court didn’t reach the constitutional questions.
The order simply denies Langevin’s emergency request but allows him to re-file a proper motion after serving the City of Palm Bay with the lawsuit.
For now, the City’s censure remains fully in effect, along with the council’s disciplinary restrictions removing Langevin from committees and barring him from placing items on the agenda.
Background
The censure, adopted October 16, 2025, cited Langevin’s repeated social-media posts attacking Indian immigrants including one claiming “there’s not a single Indian that cares about the United States” as well as his misuse of city letterhead in an unauthorized letter to Congress.
Langevin, represented by attorney and political ally Anthony Sabatini, filed his federal lawsuit on October 20, arguing the City violated his First Amendment rights. Sabatini has warned that Palm Bay taxpayers could face “costly federal litigation.”
However, this initial defeat in federal court suggests Langevin’s legal fight continues to be off to a rocky start. In the initial filing, his attorney misspelled his own name, stated the censure occurred at meeting in the future (a date that still hasn’t come) and other errors.
Legal Context
Courts have generally upheld the right of legislative bodies to censure their own members.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Houston Community College v. Wilson that elected officials’ censures are a form of protected government speech, not unconstitutional punishment.
That precedent could make it difficult for Langevin to convince a federal judge that Palm Bay’s censure violates his free-speech rights.
Next Steps
If Langevin properly serves the City and re-files, Judge Presnell may schedule a hearing to determine whether the council’s actions go beyond a symbolic rebuke.
Until then, Palm Bay’s censure stands, and the councilman’s first federal test has already gone against him.
