Despite losing in federal court last year, the City of Salina is continuing its fight to try to deny Steve Howard — owner of the Cozy Inn in Salina — his First Amendment rights.
Oral arguments were held Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2026, at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
According to a release from the Kansas Justice Institute — like The Sentinel, a subsidiary of the Kansas Policy Institute — the arguments are the latest development in a 34-month-long battle Howard and KJI have fought to preserve a UFO-themed mural in a city full of colorful murals.
The battle began in 2024, when Salina officials told Howard he had to stop painting a mural on the side of his building. The Cozy, as locals call it, is a Salina landmark that has been serving hamburgers for more than 100 years.
Murals adorn the walls of countless buildings in this vibrant, unique North Central Kansas town, and Howard wants The Cozy Inn to be part of Salina’s artistic culture. He hired local artist Colin Benson to paint a whimsical mural depicting burger-esque flying saucers piloted by aliens attacking the restaurant with blasts of ketchup and mustard. But city officials ordered Howard to halt work on the half-finished mural.
According to city officials, because The Cozy Inn sells hamburgers and the flying saucers in his mural look like hamburgers, the city considers his mural a regulated sign—not unregulated artwork— and therefore a violation of the city code.
“Salina’s code would have allowed Steve to paint a mural depicting flying pizza slices, but not burger-esque UFOs, just because The Cozy sells sliders,” said Sam MacRoberts, KJI litigation director, in a release. “That’s not just unfair, it’s unconstitutional. It’s textbook content-based discrimination, and the First Amendment doesn’t allow that.
“We’ve been consistent since day one, Salina’s code — and the way it was enforced — was unconstitutional.”
U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the Cozy Inn
U.S. District Court Judge Toby Crouse ruled in November 2025 that Salina’s code violated the First Amendment. The opinion held that “Salina cannot make any determination as to whether a display is a mural or sign without violating the First Amendment.”
Indeed, Crouse found the entire policy illegal, ruling that Howard and KJI “demonstrated that Salina imposes an unconstitutional distinction between murals and signs. Because the definition of sign is unlawful, Salina cannot make any determination as to whether a display is a mural or sign without violating the First Amendment … As a result, a declaratory judgment that Salina’s mural-sign distinction is unconstitutional on its face is appropriate.”
Crouse also found Salina was imposing “an unconstitutional prior restraint as applied to their speech. By applying that restraint, Salina has subjected the plaintiffs to a constitutional harm since it put Howard’s permit application on indefinite hold. Declaratory relief to address that harm is warranted.”
Rather than simply accept defeat — and save taxpayer money — the city chose to appeal, with seven national organizations joining KJI to fight for Howard.
Salina has asked the Tenth Circuit to overturn the lower court and hold that the city did not violate the First Amendment by distinguishing between unregulated murals and regulated signs. Kansas Justice Institute defended The Cozy’s victory, noting that the City had failed to produce any evidence justifying its actions and would fail any form of constitutional review.
“The District Court’s ruling is clear, to the point, and correct,” MacRoberts said. “Salina’s officials don’t get to play art critic, picking and choosing which murals stay, and which go. The right to free speech doesn’t work that way and never has. At the end of the day though, because of Steve and The Cozy, Salina’s mural scene just got a little bit better.”
Audio of the Cozy Inn oral arguments is available on the Court’s website.
