Palm Bay, FL – The legal battle between Councilman Chandler Langevin and the City of Palm Bay moved from City Hall to the federal courthouse on Wednesday. The hearing focused on Langevin’s emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, a temporary order to block the City’s censure. The outcome produced two distinct narratives: a “huge win” declared on social media and a procedural pause recorded in the court file.
The Victory Lap
Minutes after the 49-minute hearing concluded, Councilman Langevin’s attorney, Anthony Sabatini, took to Facebook to declare a decisive victory.
Sabatini wrote that Judge Gregory A. Presnell had indicated he would grant the motion for preliminary injunction, portraying the hearing as a decisive win.
The post characterized the outcome as an immediate vindication of Langevin’s First Amendment rights, claiming the City had unlawfully silenced the Councilman.
According to the plaintiff’s legal team, the Judge’s verbal comments from the bench signaled an immediate end to the censure lawsuit that stripped Langevin of his committee assignments and ability to place items on the agenda.
The Official Record and Legal Nuance
However, the written court record filed by the Deputy Clerk tells a more complex story that challenges the “huge win” narrative.
According to the official Minutes (Document 22), the Court did not issue an immediate written order granting the injunction. Instead, the minutes state, “Court takes the matter under advisement” (hearing minutes 120325.pdf).
“Under advisement” means the decision is pending. The subsequent Order (Document 23) focused only on the aggressive schedule for the final trial. Crucially, as of the date of this report, no document exists on the public docket explicitly enjoining, or stopping the City of Palm Bay from enforcing the censure. Until a written order is signed and docketed, the Council’s decision technically remains in full force.
The Court’s Consolidation Strategy
While the immediate fate of the injunction is pending, Judge Presnell made a significant procedural move that indicates the seriousness and urgency of the case. By expediting the full constitutional trial, the Judge seems to be consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with the final trial on the merits (a strategy permitted under Rule 65(a)(2)).
Rather than relying on a temporary fix, the Judge accelerated the date for a permanent resolution. The parties have been ordered to submit a Case Management Report by December 12, 2025.
The aggressive schedule is set as follows:
Final Pretrial Conference: January 15, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.
Bench Trial: Commences on January 21, 2026.
This move forces the City Attorney to prepare for a final showdown in less than 60 days to defend the Council’s ability to police the speech of its own members.
Fact Check: Social Media vs. Court Dockets
