Federal Court Temporarily Restrains Granbury From Removing a Resident's Political Signs

Oct 29, 2026 · 9 min read · By Brandon J. Grable

Case: Krottinger v. City of Granbury, No. 4:26-cv-01369-O (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2026), ECF No. 14 (order granting emergency motion for temporary restraining order). U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. Read the court's order (PDF).

The short version

On October 29, 2026, a federal court in Fort Worth granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a First Amendment case brought by Hood County resident Kolton Glen Krottinger against the City of Granbury. Mr. Krottinger had put political signs and a banner on private property he leased during the election season. According to the order, which draws on his verified complaint, the City removed them on the first day of early voting, and citations kept arriving at the landowner.

The order temporarily bars the City from removing those signs and the banner from that private property and from citing Mr. Krottinger over them. It is a temporary order, not a final decision. The case is ongoing, the City may contest it, and the order expires at 11:59 PM on November 12, 2026, unless it is extended. The court has set a hearing for November 9, 2026, to decide whether the restraint should continue while the lawsuit goes forward.

Brandon J. Grable of Grable PLLC represents Mr. Krottinger, who has consented to being named here.

What happened

These facts come from Mr. Krottinger's verified complaint as the court described them. They are his allegations. The City has not yet had a full opportunity to contest them, and the court has made no final decision on the merits.

According to the order, Mr. Krottinger wanted to express his views "about City Council member Gary Overdier and the political controversies surrounding data centers." He entered into a lease with the owner of a private lot in Granbury to place five signs and a banner there from October 19 to November 4, 2026. The signs included "OVERDIER IS WRONG FOR GRANBURY" and "VOTE HIM OUT!" The banner read: "Will you sacrifice the children's health?"

On October 19, 2026, the first day of early voting, the signs and banner stood alongside other candidates' political signs on the lot. The order states that later that day the City removed Mr. Krottinger's signs and banner, "while all other political signs on that lot remained." The person who had put up the signs collected them from the City and paid a $50 fine. When asked why the signs were removed, a City official first cited the City's ban on "snipe signs," could not define the term, and then said the signs were improperly placed on an easement.

The next day, Mr. Krottinger added the notice required by Texas Election Code § 259.001 to his signs and made sure they stood behind any easement. On October 21, 2026, the City mailed six citations to the landowner: five for the signs, citing the "snipe sign" ordinance and the Election Code, and one for the banner, citing a permit requirement for banner signs. The order states that citations "continue to be issued" to the landowner because of the signs.

Mr. Krottinger sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 28, 2026, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages, and filed an emergency motion for a TRO the same day. The court held a hearing on October 29, 2026. Counsel for both sides attended.

What the court decided

To get a TRO, a plaintiff must show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial threat of irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships favors him, and that the order will not disserve the public interest. The court found that Mr. Krottinger met all four at this early stage. These are the court's preliminary findings, made on an emergency record before any full examination of the merits.

Standing. At the hearing, the City argued that Mr. Krottinger lacked standing because he did not pay the $50 fine and the citations went to the landowner, not to him. The court rejected that argument. It explained that his "injury stems from the mere fact that the signs and banner belong to him," and that "[t]here is no question that the City's enforcement meant to target the owner of the signs and banner." (Order 5.)

The Heck bar. In a footnote, the court determined that the Heck bar on § 1983 suits does not apply, because although the suit may challenge the validity of the City's citations and enforcement, "it is for prospective relief." (Order 5 n.8 (citing Olivier v. City of Brandon, 607 U.S. 552 (2026)).)

The signs. The court noted that even if an ordinance is facially content neutral, "the First Amendment inquiry is not over," and quoted the Supreme Court's statement in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022), that "[i]f there is evidence that an impermissible purpose or justification underpins a facially content-neutral restriction, for instance, that restriction may be content based." (Order 5.) The court then found that "an impermissible use of the facially content-neutral Ordinance occurred." (Order 5.) The court found that the signs and banner are political signs under Texas Election Code § 259.003 because they display a political message and were placed on private property.

The City's ordinance defines a snipe sign as one attached to "trees, poles, fences, or other objects" where "the advertising matter appearing thereon is not applicable to the use of the premises." The court found that Mr. Krottinger's signs did not fit that definition because they are political signs, not advertising, and were placed on private property rather than attached to the objects the ordinance lists. In the court's words, "[a]lthough facially neutral, its enforcement was anything but." The court concluded that the City "likely violated Plaintiff's First Amendment freedoms through a viewpoint-based application of a facially neutral law." (Order 6.)

The banner. The court found that the banner is also a political sign and pointed to the City's sign-permit-fee code, which states that "political campaign signs during appropriate seasons are exempt" from permits and permit fees. (Order 6.)

Irreparable harm, hardships, and the public interest. The court quoted the Supreme Court's statement in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion), that "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." (Order 6-7.) It noted that the citations could carry penalties of up to $2,000 a day per citation, that Mr. Krottinger had begun keeping some signs in his truck out of fear of further enforcement, and that political signs have their greatest value before the election. The court found that the City faced "no cognizable harm" from the order (Order 7) and, quoting the Fifth Circuit's decision in Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012), that "[i]njunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest." (Order 8.) The court also noted that the order "would not stop the City from enforcing the Ordinance and Election Code neutrally." (Order 8.)

What the order does, and what it does not do

The order is narrow. Until it expires, it temporarily restrains the City, its officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and those acting with them who receive notice of it, from:

• removing, confiscating, relocating, or disposing of, or charging a fee to return, the five signs and the banner (and same-message replacements no larger than the originals) that Mr. Krottinger displays on the private property at 1506 W. Pearl Street in Granbury, outside any public right-of-way or public easement; and
• issuing or mailing any citation, complaint, notice of violation, or fee to Mr. Krottinger over those signs or the banner under the City ordinances at issue or Texas Election Code § 259.001. (Order 8-9.)

The bar on citations covers citations to Mr. Krottinger. The order does not address citations issued to the landowner.

If the City contends that a sign stands in a public right-of-way or public easement, it must first identify, in writing to Mr. Krottinger's counsel, "the recorded instrument, plat, or survey on which it relies" before removing the sign. (Order 8-9.)

The order also states that it does not enjoin, stay, or otherwise affect any proceeding pending in the Municipal Court of the City of Granbury, including any case against the landowner or another party named in the order. (Order 9.)

The court set bond at $100. (Order 9.)

What happens next

This is a temporary order, and the case is ongoing. The court described the TRO as "a preliminary determination designed to maintain the status quo until such time that a full examination on the merits is possible." (Order 9.) The order remains in effect only "until 11:59 PM on November 12, 2026" (Order 9), unless the court extends it. The court has set a hearing for November 9, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Fort Worth, where it "will determine whether this TRO should continue during the life of this lawsuit." (Order 9-10.) The City may contest the order and the claims at that hearing and later in the case, and the court's preliminary findings could change on a fuller record.

Why it matters

The order does not stop Granbury from enforcing its sign rules neutrally. What the court focused on, at this early stage, is how a neutral rule was applied. On the record before it, the court preliminarily found that the City likely applied a facially neutral ordinance in a viewpoint-based way to one resident's political signs on private property, where, according to the order, other political signs on the same lot stayed up. If you believe a government official removed or punished your speech because of what it said, a lawyer can help you understand your rights and the options that may apply.

Attorney advertising. This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is different.

Attorney responsible for content: Brandon J. Grable, Grable PLLC, 12451 Starcrest Dr, Suite 206, San Antonio, TX 78216, (210) 963-5297. To reach the firm, email intake@grable.law. Office visits are by appointment only.

Topics: First Amendment

Past results disclaimer: Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own facts and law. Results described depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Client testimonials are not a guarantee of any result.