Written by Brad Cooper
November 19, 2025
A federal judge has found in favor of a Salina burger joint owner who said his free speech rights were violated when the city stopped him from painting a flying-saucer-themed mural on the side of his downtown restaurant.
U.S. District Judge Toby Crouse found that the city violated Steve Howard’s First Amendment rights when it delayed his request to paint a mural on the side of the restaurant, which has been located in downtown Salina for more than 100 years.
“Salina is my hometown, I love it here,” Howard said in a statement.
“I’m incredibly excited I get to finish my mural. The reason I love this community, this town, is because of all of the support everyone has given me.”
Howard hired an artist in 2023 to paint a display on the exterior wall of The Cozy Inn that would have included “whimsical hamburgeresque flying saucers piloted by aliens attacking The Cozy with blasts of ketchup and mustard.”
The mural would have read: “Don’t Fear the Smell!! The Fun is Inside!!” And a painted arrow would have pointed to the entrance and the ordering window on the exterior wall.
The city delayed acting on Howard’s permit request while officials conducted a comprehensive review of the sign regulations to see if there were any amendments that could be made to accommodate The Cozy Inn sign.
The court ruling found that Salina’s written sign code and the way city officials interpreted it demonstrated that outdoor displays fell into one of two categories: murals and signs.
Murals are a type of art, so they’re not regulated by Salina’s sign code, meaning there are no restrictions on their size or how many may be displayed, according to the court ruling.
Murals didn’t require a permit.
Signs, however, were subject to regulation. If an outdoor display was determined to be a sign as defined by the sign code, it must comply with city restrictions, court records show.
A sign was defined as anything in writing, pictures, emblems, flags or streamers that were intended to attract the public’s attention, according to the court ruling.
Salina officials studied a photograph of the early painting of the display at The Cozy Inn and concluded it was a sign subject to city regulations.
They also concluded that the size of the display likely exceeded the surface area that The Cozy Inn had remaining for signage by nine times the allowed amount.
Because city officials determined the display was a sign, they told Howard to submit a sign-permit application, which he did on Nov. 13, 2023.
Three months later, Howard was officially notified that his application was put on hold. And two weeks later, Howard took the city to court.
Howard and the restaurant argued that Salina’s sign code, along with the unwritten practices Salina used to enforce it, violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause on its face and as applied to the display.
They claimed that Salina’s differentiation between regulated signs and unregulated murals was a content-based distinction that was unconstitutional.
They also said that Salina’s sign code and the way the city enforced it created an unconstitutional prior restraint on their speech.
They said that the distinction between a mural and a sign was facially unconstitutional, because it turned on the subject matter of the display.
They said that Salina unconstitutionally applied the distinction to their display because the city had “seemingly” allowed other businesses to erect displays pertaining to the goods or services they sell without requiring them to comply with city regulations.
“The uncontested facts demonstrate that Salina has presented no evidence connecting its solution — distinguishing between signs that pertain to the goods and services sold on-site and murals that do not — to its stated interests,” Crouse ruled.
“As a result, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their First Amendment content-discrimination claim is granted,” Crouse ruled.
Crouse also found that the city imposed an impermissible prior restraint on Howard’s speech when his sign permit application was delayed while the regulations were reviewed.
“Salina has not introduced evidence sufficient to rebut the plaintiffs’ showing that Salina applied an unconstitutional prior restraint to their expression,” Crouse wrote.
“And because Salina has not presented evidence that would create a genuine fact issue, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their prior restraint claim is granted.”
The city of Salina said the case was a split decision.
“On the one hand, the court agreed with the city and held that the challenged provisions of the city’s sign Code are not unconstitutionally vague,” the city said in a statement.
“On the other hand, it also agreed with the plaintiffs and held that the city’s definition of the term ‘sign’ violates the First Amendment,” the city said.
Consequently, “Salina cannot make any determination as to whether a display is a mural or a sign without violating the First Amendment,” the city said.
“The city is working with its attorneys to evaluate the broader implications of the court’s order and potential next steps towards resolution of the matter.”
Howard was represented in the case by the Kansas Justice Institute, which is part of the free-market-oriented Kansas Policy Institute.
Sam MacRoberts, litigation director for KJI, said the case was a “textbook” example of “content-based discrimination.”
“We’ve been consistent since day one, Salina’s code — and the way it was enforced — was unconstitutional,” MacRoberts said.