A federal court has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the City of Granbury from removing political signs until after the 2026 General Election.
On Wednesday, a local resident sued the city, alleging officials violated his First Amendment rights by removing political signs criticizing a city councilman while leaving neighboring campaign signs standing.
On Thursday, the court granted U.S. Navy veteran Kolton Krottinger’s request for an emergency court order, blocking further removals ahead of the November 3 election. On November 9, the court will consider whether to extend the order until it has fully examined the case’s merits.
Background
On July 13, 2026, five recall petitions were filed with the Office of the City Secretary requesting the resignation or recall of five Granbury city officials. This included City Councilman Gary “Skip” Overdier, who did not resign and is currently running for re-election on the November 3 ballot against Janet Logsdon.
Overdier is among three city officials suing to block the recall proceedings against them.
Krottinger, a U.S. Navy veteran and Hood County Republican precinct chair who was arrested last year for posting a political meme, leased a lot in Granbury to display a series of political signs with the landowner’s consent.
In dispute are five small signs and one banner, which read, “OVERDIER WAS RECALLED,” “FOR SUPPORTING DATA CENTER,” “HE’S SUING THE CITY TO STOP RECALL,” “OVERDIER IS WRONG FOR GRANBURY,” and “VOTE HIM OUT!”
On October 19, the first day of early voting, city code enforcement personnel allegedly took those signs but left the candidate campaign signs standing.
The following day, incoming Hood County Judge Mark Lowery went to the City of Granbury to retrieve the signs. The city required a cash payment of $50, citing a “Sign Placement Violation” and “Illegally Placed Sign.”
Eric Swaim, Granbury’s director of building and permitting, reportedly told Lowery that the signs were illegal “snipe signs,” then said they were “political signs.” Notably, political campaign signs during election season are exempt from the $50 fine.
Swaim and two city staffers then walked the property with Lowery to establish where the public easement was along the road, though Swaim was reportedly uncertain where to draw the line. The staffers eventually picked a line, and Lowery and Krottinger placed the signs accordingly.
Importantly, Krottinger asserted that other campaign signs were closer to the roadway than the five that were removed by the city, but those signs did not target Overdier. He and Lowery moved those signs as well to comply with the chosen easement.
Krottinger also placed stickers on the signs that read, “NOTICE: IT IS A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW (CHAPTERS 392 AND 393, TRANSPORTATION CODE), TO PLACE THIS SIGN IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF A HIGHWAY,” as required by state law. That law contains no provision authorizing the city to remove a sign because it lacks the required notice.
The city then cited landowner Jarred Hopson for the sign violation. Swaim told Hopson over the phone that if he would tell him who the signs belonged to, the city would write the citations to that person instead.
Swaim ultimately issued Hopson six Granbury Police Department citations, and Hopson has since received additional citations.
The city has reportedly not cited, removed, or charged a fee for any of the candidate signs on the same frontage, which stood in the same area and manner as those targeting Overdier, some even closer to the road.
The Lawsuit
On Wednesday, Krottinger sued the City of Granbury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging First Amendment violations.
Krottinger alleged that the city’s actions constitute viewpoint discrimination, since the other campaign signs even closer to the road were not taken down. He argued that the signs targeting Overdier were taken down “because of their message.”
“The City singled out these signs because of their content, their speaker, and their viewpoint, and its enforcement against them is content based in purpose and application,” reads the suit. [T]he City enforced the rule only against Plaintiff’s signs criticizing an official, not against the neighboring candidate signs in the same strip.”
Krottinger sought a temporary restraining order and eventually a permanent injunction, blocking the city and its agents from removing, confiscating, relocating, disposing of, or charging a fee to return the five signs.
“An actual controversy exists, and it will continue past November 3, 2026, because Plaintiff intends to display political signs in Granbury in future elections and reasonably expects the same enforcement,” the lawsuit reads.
Temporary Restraining Order Granted
On Thursday, the court decided to grant Krottinger’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which will remain in effect until November 9. This order protects the signs from the threat of removal through the November 3 election.
Following the TRO ruling, the City of Granbury posted a news release to its official website.
“On October 29, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor heard evidence that is not factually accurate and granted a temporary restraining order, finding that Krottinger had demonstrated he could suffer harm without immediate court protection,” reads the release.
Krottinger is being represented by attorney Brandon Grable, who also represents him in a separate lawsuit against Hood County over his arrest for posting a meme. Graber sent a letter to the City of Granbury demanding that it remove or retract its statement.
“That sentence tells the public, on the City’s own website and on the same day the Court ruled, that Mr. Krottinger and his witnesses put false evidence before a federal judge, without identifying any testimony, exhibit, or fact.,” wrote Graber. “Yet the City chose not to challenge that evidence when it could.”
Graber explained that the city declined to cross-examine witnesses during the Thursday hearing and that no city official or witness appeared.
“Having declined to test the evidence in court, the City should not disparage it in a press release. If the City believes any of it is inaccurate, the place to say so is the November 9 preliminary-injunction hearing,” he continued.
What Happens Next
On November 9, the court will hold a hearing to determine whether the TRO should be extended until Krottinger’s case may be fully considered on the merits.
In addition to permanently blocking the city from taking such action, Krottinger is seeking a declaration that the city violated his rights by enforcing its zoning ordinances against his political signs, which were placed on private property and “outside any public right-of-way or easement established by recorded instrument or survey.” He also seeks a declaration that his signs did not constitute “snipe signs,” which apply only to advertising matters rather than noncommercial political signs.
This is not the first sign-stealing scandal in Granbury.
During the school bond fights of 2023 and 2024, Jim Lilly was caught stealing anti-bond yard signs that were designed and Apple AirTagged by his opponent for GOP precinct chair, Tim Bolton. City Attorney Jeremy SoRelle represented Lilly in his criminal prosecution.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: tips@texasscorecard.com.
