Supreme Court asked to rule on constitutionality of cannabis fines in Humboldt County case

HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Calif. — The Institute of Justice (IJ) said it’s asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if state and local governments must provide jury trials before levying large civil fines.

The case surrounds Humboldt County’s cannabis abatement program, which resulted in fines amounting to tens of millions of dollars for a group of homeowners. The group previously succeeded in the Ninth Circuit Court, arguing that the fines imposed by the program were unconstitutional. IJ is now requesting the Supreme Court determine whether these fines infringe upon the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial, since the requirement hasn’t yet been formally recognized to apply to state and local courts.

Doug and Corrine Thomas, Blue Graham, Rhonda Olson, and Cyro Glad all face fines for allegedly cultivating cannabis, despite never growing the plant on their properties, according to IJ. The group is now looking for their day in court in front of peers, something they said won’t happen without intervention from the Supreme Court.

Graham said he built a greenhouse on his land after having a hard time growing peppers for a homemade hot sauce he uses at his restaurant in Shelter Cove. He claims the county gave him ten days to remove them, along with a pond on the property, or face $10,000 daily fines after the inspector saw the greenhouses on satellite images and assumed they were cannabis. When he drove to Eureka to appeal, Graham said county officials insisted they knew he was not just growing asparagus. Graham didn’t get a hearing for more than four years, which he claims the county didn’t schedule until just before he filed the lawsuit.

If the county inspector had asked to swing by, I would have been happy to show him inside my greenhouses. I’ve got nothing to hide. It was just a bunch of peppers,” Graham said, adding “The County eventually gave up on pretending they had proof I grew marijuana but wouldn’t give me a permit for my house unless I settled.”

According to IJ, the county levied fines of $12,000 a day on the Thomases because previous owners of the house used a barn on the property to grow the plant.

The group alleges the single hearing officer appointed by the county to review evidence for possible fines avoids transparency, fairness, and accountability under the current enforcement process, claiming the system treats residents like revenue streams rather than citizens who deserve due process. They also allege the county rarely conducts basic investigations, assumes greenhouses and other outbuildings exist for cannabis cultivation, and has admitted to relying solely on satellite images for enforcement.

A decision by the Supreme Court on the case could establish a precedent with nationwide implications.

The group alleges the single hearing officer appointed by the county to review evidence for possible fines avoids transparency, fairness, and accountability under the current enforcement process, claiming the system treats residents like revenue streams rather than citizens who deserve due process.

—

Report a correction or typo.