High Stakes in Humboldt: Supreme Court Asked to Hear Landmark Cannabis Fine Case

The Institute for Justice filed a petition yesterday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case against Humboldt County over its cannabis abatement program. The case, rooted in the alleged unconstitutionality of the Humboldt County cannabis abatement program that has raked in upwards of ten million dollars in fines and fees, specifically centers on the claim that the program violates the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution, which essentially ensures the right to a jury trial when government imposes civil fines of $20 or more.

Congress.gov 

Jared McClain, IJ’s lead attorney for the petitioners wrote to us about the filing May 15, stating,

“The petition, on behalf of a group of Humboldt residents, asks the Court to take up one question: Does the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a jury trial in civil cases apply to state and local governments, just as it does to the federal government? This case isn’t just about whether Humboldt’s fines are too high. It’s about whether the government can sidestep the Seventh Amendment instead of trying their case to a jury”

This petition is related, though separate, from the Federal class action suit that we have reported on extensively at RHBB (linked below).

Twitter (now called X0 post from IJ attorney Jared McClain

Those keeping up with the story may recall federal magistrate Robert Illman dismissed all claims at the local district court in McKinleyville on May 13, 2023, though in April 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court heard the Institute for Justice’s appeal and ruled in favor of abated property owners on almost every claim. Subsequently the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back on remand to be reheard by Judge Illman, something the plaintiffs are still patiently waiting on today. 

Rhonda Olson, a plaintiff in the suit, explained to this reporter,

“I’ve been stuck in this situation that threatens to bankrupt me for five years. And for what? I bought some land to build affordable housing and a week later Humboldt County fined me millions of dollars for non existent violations on my property. I should have been able to have a trial with a jury of my peers, but instead I’m still waiting for the county’s kangaroo court with the appointed judge who is in contract with the county. The judges are so biased the county workers brag about this injustice as a tool to incentivize victims like me to settle. I’m not guilty of anything, so how can it be that a county can accuse me of a crime and I never get to defend myself? The Seventh Amendment says that I’m entitled to a jury of my peers. Our constitutional rights have to extend to the state and local governments. And of all cases that demonstrate why that’s important, it is ours.”

Jared McClain, attorney at the Institute for Justice wrote to us,

“When a county official tells landowners they will owe millions of dollars in fines because the county’s judges and attorneys are all on the same side, it’s clear that the system is stacked against them. Humboldt designed its code enforcement system to generate revenue, not justice. The County says its enforcement system avoids the “expense and delay” of the courts. But the right to a jury trial is not an inconvenience the government can discard to save a few bucks, the petition argues. 

While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the residents’ favor in almost every key aspect—reversing the district court’s dismissal of four constitutional claims—one critical issue remains unresolved. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the residents Seventh Amendment claim, because back in 1916, the Supreme Court said that the Seventh Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, doesn’t apply to state and local governments. But over the last century, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporated” the Bill of Rights so that it applies to the states too, not just the federal government. 

By this point, nearly every right in the Bill of Rights applies to the states. The Institute for Justice successfully applied the Excessive Fines Clause to the states. And in 2020, the Court applied the unanimous jury requirement to the states. The Seventh Amendment right to a jury in civil cases is one of the last rights left that state and local governments can ignore. That’s the issue these Humboldt residents are now asking the Supreme Court to take up.”

Because the Seventh Amendment has not been “incorporated”—that is, made applicable to the states as most of the Bill of Rights have been—the Ninth Circuit Court was unable to effectively rule on the Institute for Justice’s claim last year, it is a matter for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.

For example in the Timbs v Indiana Supreme Court case of 2019, the Institute for Justice incorporated the Eighth Amendment to states and local governments, regarding excessive fines and fees imposed by local and state governments (more on the history of incorporation of the Bill of Rights here).

The First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments to the constitution have been fully incorporated. The Fifth and Sixth have been partially incorporated. The Third and Seventh Amendments have not been incorporated at this time. 

Although the Supreme Court typically hears less than one percent of the petitions filed, the Institute for Justice has an outstanding track record with 1 in 5 of petitions granted. The Institute for Justice has litigated a total of thirteen cases before the Supreme Court, and won ten cases, six in the past six years.

The victims of the county’s cannabis abatement program say their hopes are high that this petition could potentially be heard by the Supreme Court with vast implications for the nation if they win.

Plaintiff Corrine Thomas, a retired fire refugee from Southern California, bought property in Humboldt County and within a few weeks of closing escrow (and still today) with no indication of an issue with the sale on the title of the property, her family faced over a million in cannabis related fines, despite no proof of them growing marijuana. 

Corrine Thomas told this reporter,

“This case is huge, and I am so honored to be a part of it. I believe the Supreme Court will choose to hear this case because it’s only a matter of time before the Seventh Amendment will be applied to the states and local governments too. The implications of a win could be groundbreaking, and not just for all of Humboldt county, but for all people in the United States of America.”

Note: If you would like to donate to support Nikki Norris’ work, former SoHum attorney Ed Denson set up a GoFundMe for her here.