A stupid Facebook post — or, rather, the unconstitutional response to it — just got a bit expensive for the Village of Palmetto Bay.
Remember the uproar over Palmetto Bay Councilman Steve Cody and his controversial satire about slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk?
The outrage. The censure. The political grandstanding.
Now comes the lawsuit.
On Monday, the ACLU of Florida filed a federal complaint against the Village of Palmetto Bay, accusing the municipal 
government of violating Cody’s First Amendment rights by punishing him after acknowledging that his speech was constitutionally protected.
Yes, you read that right. First, they agreed that it was protected speech. Then, they punished him anyway. That’s the kind of contradiction that makes constitutional lawyers rub their hands together like it’s Black Friday.
Read related: Palmetto Bay councilman is asked to resign after ‘vile’ Charlie Kirk post
Let’s rewind. On Sept. 10, 2025 — the day Kirk was killed — Cody posted a satirical message on his personal Facebook page, referencing Kirk’s own past comments about gun deaths being “worth it” to preserve Second Amendment rights.
The satire was sharp. Dark. Unapologetic. Classic Cody.
And politically radioactive.
The backlash came fast and loud. Residents poured into Village Hall demanding his resignation. Even Ashley Moody called for 
Cody to resign. When he wouldn’t, members of Congress urged Ron DeSantis to suspend him. People formed a recall committee, that recently fizzled into nothing. The Palmetto Bay Village Council responded with a formal censure.
But that wasn’t the end of it.
In November, the council went further — removing Cody from committee assignments, stripping liaison roles, and blocking him from representing the village in official capacities.
That’s the part that now sits at the heart of the lawsuit.
Read related: Recall vs Palmetto Bay Councilman Steve Cody is officially dead on arrival
The ACLU’s case boils down to a simple constitutional claim: Government officials can condemn speech. They can criticize it. They can denounce it. They can call it offensive, disgusting, or beneath the dignity of public office.
But what they cannot do — according to the lawsuit — is punish an elected official by stripping duties and authority because they disagree with the viewpoint expressed. The lawsuit focuses on the November resolution—sponsored by Vice Mayor Mark Merwitzer — that removed Cody from roles and responsibilities after the Village acknowledged his speech was protected.
“They gave my role as a council member a nip and tuck,” Cody told Political Cortadito.
ACLU lawyers say that’s called viewpoint discrimination, and courts have historically taken a dim view of it. Especially when it involves elected officials and political speech — the very speech the First Amendment protects most aggressively.
But Vice Mayor Mark Merwitzer, Cody’s nemesis and the man who whipped the residents into a frenzy after the Kirk quote, says the council is well within its rights.
“Councilman Cody still has his office, his vote, his microphone and hs platform. He lost one nonvoting liaison assignment after 
residents showed up in record numbers and demanded accountability for conduct they believed fell short of the dignity of his office,” Merwitzer told Political Cortadito. “Congress removed Paul Gosar from committees after a social media post. It also removed Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ilhan Omar from committees after controversial statements or conduct. Those actions were treated as political accountability within a legislative body and the same principle applies here.
“Cody has every right to speak for himself, but he has no entitlement to a particular liaison assignment nd to speak on behalf of the Village Council after the community has lost confidence in him,” Merwitzer said, calling Cody a hypocrite.
“Councilman Cody cannot credibly recast himself as the Village’s leading defender of free speech while repeatedly threatening multiple residents with defamation claims for criticizing his conduct,” “The same First Amendment he invokes protects residents who speak out against elected official.”
Read related: State slapped with federal lawsuit after firing biologist for Charlie Kirk post
Let’s be honest. When Cody posted that message, plenty of people — including Ladra — winced.
It was biting satire at a moment of national grief. It was provocative. And it was guaranteed to trigger outrage. Which, of course, it did.
But outrage doesn’t equal illegality. And that’s where this story takes a turn from local drama to federal courtroom drama.
Because the same council that acknowledged Cody’s speech was constitutionally protected later voted to remove his roles anyway.
If the ACLU wins, the consequences could ripple beyond one village and one councilman.
The lawsuit asks the federal court to stop the village’s actions — and potentially restore Cody’s roles. But more broadly, it could 
set boundaries for how local governments across Florida respond when elected officials say something inflammatory.
Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: Public officials say controversial things all the time.
Sometimes reckless things. Sometimes offensive things. Sometimes things that make constituents furious.
The First Amendment doesn’t protect speech because it’s polite. It protects speech because it isn’t.
There’s also the practical reality — the one taxpayers eventually feel. Federal lawsuits aren’t cheap. Win or lose, defending constitutional litigation means lawyers, filings, hearings, and possibly appeals. Which means the village’s attempt to discipline one councilman could now cost far more than any political damage control was worth.
All because a Facebook post turned into a power struggle.
Legal arguments aside, the political question hasn’t gone away: Was the punishment about protecting decorum — or punishing dissent? That’s the question a federal judge will now weigh.
And it’s also the question voters in Palmetto Bay may keep asking long after the courtroom lights dim.
Because once the Constitution gets involved, this stops being a Facebook controversy. And starts becoming precedent.
This kind of independent, government watchdog reporting is crucial to transparency and democracy. And more so every day. Help shine a light on the darker corners of our community with a contribution to Political Cortadito. Click here. Ladra thanks you for your support.
ACLU sues Palmetto Bay over reaction to Steve Cody’s Charlie Kirk FB post added by Ladra on
View all posts by Ladra →
So Vice Mayor Mark Merwitzer thinks it’s ok to potentially have taxpayers billed millions of dollars to back his rabble rousing of a facebook post throughout the federal courts??
Yet, he has a problem defending the Village of Palmetto Bay’s sovereignty from a developer recklessly attempting to increase density (by OVERTURNING the long-established E1 zoning of the former FPL property)??
And by the way, the E1 zoning is settled law and the courts have long defended the residents and the village over the last decade, against the developer’s attempts to overturn and increase density.
Of course the dirty little secret is Mark Merwitzer is guided by his lobbyist campaign manager J.L. Castillo — who’s also hired through various shell companies and developer Oscar Barbara to somehow overturn the long-held E1 zoning years later.
Castillo and developer Barbara have long failed in their over-densification attempts (the 11th Circuit Court and higher 3rd District Court of Appeal have respectively denounced).
Merwitzer is OK billing taxpayers millions of dollars “over word-control on a facebook post” — yet has no problem overturning long-held zoning “of the people” and the Village, and the courts — that would result in increased development density, vehicles, and ancillary vehicle traffic into multiple school zones and Old Cutler Road… And increase gridlock on the F-rated and now worst congested historic road stretch in the state, Old Cutler Road??
We are watching you Mark Merwitzer.
Will you write an article about the first amendment violation of those kids in the leaked group chat? Some were fired kicked from positions removed from board positions all over free speech. Or does the whale who runs this page only care when it’s democrats?
Garbage on garbage crime
No grief over Kirk’s death here on my part. Hadn’t even heard of the guy until he was murdered. Cody’s post may seem a bit callous, but nothing more callous than the vile things I later learned Kirk has said. This will be a very interesting case to follow. Good on the ACLU.
A moment of national grief?
Some may have been sad. Others – myself included – while decrying gun violence or political violence of any kind – are in the “live by the sword, die by the sword” camp. A bully and professional rabble rouser, a guy in his 30s who only debated kids, because he couldn’t win arguments with adults, won’t be missed.
So well written