This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a petition asking whether Americans have a right to a jury trial when facing massive civil fines imposed by their state or local government. The petition arose out of Thomas v. Humboldt County, a case brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ) challenging Humboldt County, California’s practice of imposing enormous marijuana-related code enforcement penalties without due process.

While the Court declined to take up that specific constitutional question, despite a statement of support from Justice Gorsuch, the rest of the underlying case continues in the district court after a major victory in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for property owners. The question of a civil jury trial was just one of the multiple ways that Humboldt’s code enforcement system violates the constitution—namely, that Humboldt’s program of levying tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in daily-accruing fines against landowners remains deeply unconstitutional.

“No one should face life-altering fines without the protection of a jury of their peers,” said IJ Attorney Jared McClain. “The Supreme Court’s decision not to take this case doesn’t change the fact that Humboldt’s scheme of crushing ordinary people under massive penalties for minor code issues is still unconstitutional—whether the fines are brought before a jury or not. We’ll continue fighting to stop it.”

The case stems from Humboldt County’s campaign of imposing staggering fines on rural property owners accused of minor code infractions, which the county deemed (often without evidence) were related to marijuana cultivation. Homeowners have faced penalties topping millions of dollars for building a shed or a greenhouse, even when they never grew or sold marijuana. Many were denied timely hearings or due process, leaving them trapped by escalating fines while the county refused to issue permits or consider appeals.

In a statement on the denial of certiorari, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that the right to a civil jury trial is a fundamental constitutional protection that deserves the Court’s attention. He wrote that “surely, those who founded our Nation considered the right to trial by jury a fundamental part of their birthright,” “so much so that they cited its deprivation at the hands of colonial authorities as one of the reasons for breaking ties with England.” He further emphasized that the “Court should confront its Seventh Amendment holding soon. A right ‘of such importance,’ one that ‘occupies so firm a place in our history,’ deserves no less.”

“Justice Gorsuch is right,” said IJ Senior Attorney Robert Johnson. “The right to a civil jury is a cornerstone of our liberty, and IJ will continue working to ensure that Americans don’t lose it simply because the government calls a proceeding ‘civil’ instead of ‘criminal.’ We will keep pressing this issue until the Court takes it up.”

IJ will continue litigating Thomas v. Humboldt County in federal court to vindicate its clients’ property rights and ensure that local governments cannot use ruinous fines to punish or control ordinary Americans.