Palm Bay Sued Over Public Comment Policy

Lawsuit filed 11 days after 3-2 vote claims residency restriction violates Florida's open-meeting laws

Sample Public Comment Card

A ‘Common-Sense Policy’ or a Constitutional Violation? The New Palm Bay Public Comment Rules

Palm Bay, FL – The City of Palm Bay is facing a lawsuit filed in Brevard County Circuit Court, challenging the City Council’s recent decision to restrict who can speak during its meetings. The lawsuit was filed on October 27, 2025, by Joshua Meyers, a known open-government activist who has previously and successfully sued other Florida governments over Sunshine Law violations.

The complaint alleges that the new Palm Bay public comment policy is unconstitutional and violates Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law.

At the October 16, 2025, council meeting, the council passed the new policy in a 3-2 vote. The change, sponsored by Deputy Mayor Mike Jaffe, amends the council’s procedures to limit speakers during the general public comment period.

The new rule states:

“Speakers shall be limited to the City’s citizens, owners of property or businesses within the City, or those which receive utility services from the City concerning those utility services.”

This vote came at the end of a long, contentious meeting where numerous non-residents had traveled to Palm Bay to speak against the conduct of Councilman Chandler Langevin.

The “Why”: Council’s Justification for the Change

During the meeting, Deputy Mayor Jaffe defended the policy as a “common-sense” measure. He stated his rationale was based on prioritizing the city’s 155,000 residents and the cost of non-resident participation.

“Even up until tonight, there was almost a dozen people that didn’t live in Palm Bay speaking and asking us to take action against staff and against council members,” Jaffe said from the dais. “We have an abundance of staff sitting here that we’re paying to be here. And these people are coming from outside our city limits, not paying taxes, yet costing our city money... I don’t have the capacity to serve anybody outside the city of Palm Bay. I was elected to serve the residents of Palm Bay.”

Councilmen Chandler Langevin and Kenny Johnson joined Jaffe in voting “Aye,” passing the measure.

The policy faced dissent on the dais. Councilman Hammer voted “Nay,” stating, “I wasn’t put in here to speak for how I feel only. So I am going to be against it tonight.”

Mayor Rob Medina also voted “Nay,” raising both regional and practical objections. “We’re also regionally impacted by a national estuary,” Medina said, noting that input from non-residents has been valuable in protecting the Indian River Lagoon. He also questioned the policy’s enforceability, asking, “how are you going to police that?”

The Core of the Lawsuit: A State Law vs. a Federal Case

The lawsuit filed by Joshua Meyers hinges on a direct conflict between an old federal court case and a newer state law.

1. The City’s Likely Defense (The 2004 Federal Case)

The council’s 3-2 decision appears to be based on the Rowe v. City of Cocoa** (2004)** case. In that federal lawsuit, a court ruled that Cocoa’s identical “resident-only” policy was constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment. This case established that such a rule meets the minimum standard for free speech required by the U.S. Constitution (the “floor”).

2. The Lawsuit’s Claim (The 2013 State Law)

The plaintiff’s lawsuit argues that the 2004 Rowe case is obsolete. The suit is based on Florida Statute § 286.0114, which was passed by the Florida Legislature in 2013, nine years after the Rowe case.

This newer state law was designed to give the public more rights than the U.S. Constitution requires (setting a higher “ceiling”).

The lawsuit argues that this statute gives cities a specific, “limited” list of four rules they are allowed to use to manage public comment (e.g., time limits, sign-up forms, group representatives).

A rule restricting speakers based on residency is not on that list.

Therefore, the lawsuit claims the City Council “exceeded its delegated statutory authority” by inventing a fifth restriction that the state legislature never permitted. The complaint also alleges the policy violates Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, the “Access to public records and meetings” clause.

An Experienced Plaintiff and Legal Team

This lawsuit does not appear to be a spontaneous complaint. The plaintiff, Joshua Meyers, is an established open-government activist. In 2020, Meyers successfully sued Osceola County for holding non-public meetings of its “Executive Policy Group” during the pandemic, a case he won on appeal in 2023.

Meyers is represented by the same St. Petersburg law firm from that successful appeal, Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., which specializes in First Amendment and public-access lawsuits. The 11-day gap between the policy’s adoption and the filing suggests a prepared, strategic legal challenge from a plaintiff experienced in this specific area of law.

Council’s Vote and Financial Risk

A review of the October 16 meeting transcript shows that while City Attorney Patricia Smith provided detailed legal analysis on other items (such as the Langevin censure), the Council did not ask her for a legal opinion on the public comment policy during the open meeting. The 3-2 decision was made following the council members’ own debate.

The lawsuit asks a judge to declare the policy void and issue an injunction to permanently block the city from enforcing it.

Critically, the lawsuit also asks for attorney’s fees. Florida Statute § 286.0114(7) includes a mandatory “fee-shifting” provision. If the court finds the city violated the law, it “shall assess reasonable attorney fees” against the city. This means Palm Bay taxpayers would be responsible for paying the plaintiff’s legal bills in addition to the city’s own defense costs.

Given that the plaintiff is challenging the policy based on a specific state statute that appears to supersede the city’s 2004 legal precedent, the city’s 3-2 decision places Palm Bay in a highly vulnerable legal and financial position.