A federal court has declined to extend a temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by Paulette Guajardo, allowing removal proceedings tied to her office to move forward. However, the court scheduled a hearing on a preliminary injunction, ensuring the legal battle is far from over.
Federal Court Lets TRO Expire
The TRO that temporarily blocked action against the mayor expired at 5 p.m. on April 27. Earlier, on April 14, U.S. District Judge George C. Hanks Jr. approved the order to prevent the City Council from suspending Guajardo during an April 15 meeting.
The council chose to set a pretrial hearing for May 19 rather than pursue suspension. During that session, members will review key legal elements, including witness lists, motions, and filings.
What Happens Next?
The next major milestone is a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for May 13. This proceeding will determine whether the court should temporarily halt the removal process pending the broader case.
Understanding the Removal Process
Removal hearings for elected officials follow procedures similar to civil trials. However, the outcomes differ significantly. Possible results include:
- Suspension
- Reprimand
- Removal from office
- No action
The process began after six residents filed a petition alleging misconduct and malfeasance by the mayor.
Key Allegations Explained
The petition claims that Guajardo knowingly advanced a measure involving a downtown hotel development despite concerns about altered presentation materials submitted in support of a request for tax incentives. She later voted in favor of approving approximately $2 million in project incentives.
Further allegations—outlined in articles of impeachment—accuse the mayor of perjury during depositions connected to a lawsuit filed by a competing hotel developer seeking to overturn the incentive approval.
Guajardo has strongly denied all allegations. She maintains that the removal effort is politically motivated and linked to disagreements over a proposed desalination plant project. Petitioners, however, reject that claim.
Judge’s Ruling and Legal Reasoning
In his April 27 order, Judge Hanks concluded that Guajardo did not sufficiently demonstrate a strong likelihood of success in her legal claims. Specifically, the court found no clear evidence that city officials acted outside their authority or violated the city charter.
Additionally, the ruling noted that the removal proceedings—initiated through a petition by registered voters—appeared to have a rational basis. The court also stated that available records did not prove that retaliation drove the process.
These findings ultimately led to the expiration of the TRO without renewal.
Legal Arguments From Both Sides
Guajardo’s legal team, led by attorney John Flood, expressed optimism despite the setback. Flood emphasized that the upcoming hearing will provide an opportunity to present evidence challenging the legitimacy of the removal effort.
He described the proceedings as a misuse of governmental processes rooted in what he called a “false narrative.” He also urged city leaders to shift their attention toward pressing community issues rather than prolonged political disputes.
On the other side, attorney Hal George, representing the city, previously argued that Guajardo’s claims were speculative and not yet ripe for judicial intervention.
Investigations and Broader Context
Separate law enforcement and administrative investigations into the matter did not result in findings of criminal wrongdoing. Still, proponents of the removal process argue that the issue centers on ethics rather than criminal liability.
Meanwhile, court records show that several City Council members—including Carolyn Vaughn, Kaylynn Paxson, Gil Hernandez, and Eric Cantu—have been formally served in connection with the lawsuit. Some officials have declined to comment publicly, citing the ongoing legal process.
Political and Civic Implications
This case highlights ongoing tensions within city leadership and raises broader questions about governance, accountability, and public trust. As the legal proceedings continue, both sides appear committed to defending their positions in court and in the public sphere.
What to Watch Moving Forward
The May 13 preliminary injunction hearing will be critical. If the court grants the injunction, it could temporarily halt the removal process. If denied, the case will proceed to the scheduled pretrial hearing and, if necessary, to potential full removal proceedings.
Ultimately, the outcome could shape Guajardo’s political future and influence how officials handle removal petitions in similar cases.