Date Filed: July 27, 2026
Original Court: Western District of Texas, Austin Division
Case Status: Active Litigation
Case Summary:
In August 2025, Michael Petrick purchased a home on a 0.28-acre lot in Austin, Texas, in preparation for the birth of his first child. The property contained three overgrown trees. One tree was splitting and posed a risk of falling on the house, while the other two had overgrown limbs extending over the road and into power lines, posing a serious safety hazard. To protect his family and the community, Mr. Petrick hired a tree-trimming company to remove the splitting tree and prune the overgrown ones.
The City of Austin subsequently sent a notice of violation, claiming that the two trimmed trees had been “over-pruned” and were thus classified as completely “removed” under the City’s local ordinance and demanding an after-the-fact removal permit. The trees remain standing and leafy-green.
As a condition for the after-the-fact permit, the City demanded that Mr. Petrick plant 44 caliper-inches of replacement trees—which equates to planting a minimum of fifteen 13-to-15-foot trees on his small lot—or pay an $8,800 “mitigation” fee to the City’s Urban Forest Replenishment Fund. This fee is calculated strictly by a preset formula based on tree species and trunk size, without any individualized assessment of harm or impact to the surrounding properties.
TPPF sued the City of Austin for placing an unconstitutional condition on the permit. TPPF also argues that this arbitrary demand effectively grants the City controlling ownership over Mr. Petrick’s private property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. TPPF seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the City of Austin from enforcing this unconstitutional mandate.
Case Documents: