Politics in Florida is rarely quiet, but even by Sunshine State standards, the legal saga involving Congressman Cory Mills has been particularly intense. If you’ve seen the headlines about the restraining order against Cory Mills, you know it’s a tangled story of a high-profile breakup, serious allegations of "revenge porn," and a courtroom battle that didn’t just stay in the family courts—it reached the halls of Congress.
It's messy. Honestly, when a sitting U.S. Representative is ordered by a judge to stay 500 feet away from a pageant queen, people notice. This isn't just about tabloid fodder; it’s about the legal boundaries for public officials and the reality of how these cases play out in the Florida court system.
The Petitioner: Miss United States Steps Forward
The person behind the initial filing is Lindsey Langston. At the time the news broke in late 2025, she wasn't just "the ex-girlfriend." She was the reigning Miss United States 2024 and a Republican state committeewoman.
The relationship between Langston and Mills reportedly began in late 2021 and lasted until early 2025. According to court documents and testimony, the fallout began when Langston tried to move on.
She alleged that Mills—the representative for Florida's 7th District—began a pattern of harassment that included threats to leak sexually explicit images and videos of her. In July 2025, things hit a breaking point when Langston filed a police report with the Columbia County Sheriff's Office. She claimed Mills was contacting her repeatedly, upset that she might be seeing other people.
What the Judge Actually Decided
In October 2025, Florida Circuit Judge Fred Koberlein Jr. made it official. After listening to testimony from both sides, he granted a permanent injunction against dating violence.
The judge didn't pull any punches. He stated there was "reasonable cause to believe" Langston was in "imminent danger of becoming the victim of another act of dating violence" if the court didn't step in.
🔗 Read more: Charlie Kirk: What Really Happened to the TPUSA Founder?
What does the restraining order against Cory Mills actually require? Basically, it’s a standard "no-contact" order with some very specific teeth:
- Physical distance: Mills must stay at least 500 feet away from Langston’s home and workplace.
- No communication: No texts, no calls, no third-party messages.
- Social media blackout: This one is a bit more modern. The judge specifically forbade Mills from directly referring to Langston on social media.
The order was set to remain in effect until January 1, 2026. If Mills were to violate it, he could face charges for indirect criminal contempt.
"Strap Up Cowboy" and the Defense
During the hearings in Lake City, the courtroom got a look at some pretty eyebrow-raising text messages. In one exchange, Langston asked to be left alone. Mills allegedly responded with a message suggesting he could send "videos" to her new romantic interest.
Another message that became a centerpiece of the case featured Mills telling Langston she should tell any guy she dates to "strap up cowboy" if they ever ran into each other.
💡 You might also like: Recent News About Venezuela: What Most People Get Wrong About the Post-Maduro Era
Mills' defense? He argued it was all taken out of context. His lawyers claimed "strap up" was just a term for a "wild ride," not a threat of physical violence. Mills himself testified that he had no intent to release anything "salacious" and that doing so would be politically suicidal anyway.
The judge wasn't buying it. He noted that Mills failed to provide a "credible rebuttal" to the evidence of emotional distress Langston presented. She described being so sick from the stress that she was in the fetal position, suffering from hives, and requiring medication for anxiety.
The Fallout in Washington D.C.
You can’t have a Congressman under a restraining order without the House Ethics Committee getting involved. In November 2025, the committee announced a "wide-ranging investigation."
They aren't just looking at the dating violence allegations. The probe is also digging into:
- Whether Mills misused congressional resources.
- Allegations of revenge porn or sexual misconduct.
- Violations of campaign finance laws.
- Whether he properly disclosed financial information.
Rep. Nancy Mace even went as far as introducing a censure resolution to kick Mills off the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. For now, Mills has remained in his seat, calling the accusations "false things" and promising that his "receipts" will eventually clear his name.
Why This Matters for 2026
As of early 2026, the situation remains a major talking point in Florida’s 7th District. While the initial restraining order was set through the start of the year, the political and legal repercussions are far from over.
If you are following this case or similar legal disputes, it’s important to understand how Florida handles these injunctions. They are civil matters, not criminal, meaning Mills wasn't "charged with a crime" in the traditional sense. However, the judge’s finding that there was a credible threat of violence carries significant weight in both the court of law and the court of public opinion.
Moving Forward: Actionable Insights
If you’re tracking this case or find yourself in a similar situation regarding digital harassment or dating violence, keep these points in mind:
- Document Everything: The "receipts" mattered here. Langston’s ability to produce specific text messages and timestamps was likely the deciding factor for the judge.
- Understand Injunctions: A restraining order (or injunction for protection) in Florida can be filed even if no physical battery has occurred yet. "Reasonable fear" is often enough.
- The Social Media Clause: Modern restraining orders frequently include social media bans. If someone is ordered not to contact you, that usually includes "tagging" or making disparaging public posts about you.
- Ethics and Employment: For public figures, a civil injunction can trigger secondary consequences like the House Ethics investigation we see here.
The case of the restraining order against Cory Mills serves as a high-profile reminder that digital threats—specifically the threat to share intimate imagery—are being taken increasingly seriously by the judicial system. Whether or not the Ethics Committee finds further violations, the court has already set a firm boundary on what is acceptable behavior.