Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether state and local governments must provide jury trials before imposing massive civil fines. The case arises from Humboldt County, California, where local officials imposed life-altering penalties on property owners without having to prove the government’s case to a jury.
At the heart of the petition is a critical constitutional question: Does the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in civil cases apply to state and local governments, just as it already does at the federal level?
“This case is not just about excessive fines—it’s about government accountability,” said Jared McClain, IJ’s lead attorney. “Until the Supreme Court decides that the Seventh Amendment applies to the states, local governments will continue to destroy people’s rights outside of a jury’s view.”
The petitioners—Doug and Corrine Thomas, Blu Graham, Rhonda Olson, and Cyro Glad—face fines totaling millions of dollars for alleged cannabis-cultivation violations, despite none of them having ever grown cannabis on their land. Without intervention from the Supreme Court, they will never get their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.
Humboldt County’s system allows a single, county-appointed attorney—a “hearing officer” who answers to county officials—to weigh the government’s evidence and impose devastating fines. The county argues that its administrative enforcement process saves the time and expense of real trials. But in doing so, it avoids fairness, transparency, and accountability. Without juries, the county operates unchecked, effectively treating residents like revenue streams rather than people deserving due process. As the county brags, its hearing officers work for the Code Enforcement Unit and have never ruled against the government.
Although the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled favorably for the petitioners on several points—largely reversing the lower court’s dismissal—the critical issue of Seventh Amendment rights remains foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. The appellate court held that the Seventh Amendment was not “viable” because the Seventh Amendment does not currently apply to the states. This specific issue is now before the Supreme Court.
“We just want a fair chance to defend ourselves in front of a jury,” said petitioner Rhonda Olson. “The government shouldn’t be able to ruin people’s lives without letting them be heard by their peers.”
Unlike most protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Seventh Amendment’s jury-trial requirement hasn’t yet been formally recognized as applying to state and local courts. Many jurisdictions across the country also deny people the right to a jury trial before imposing civil fines. For example, major metropolitan areas like Chicago and New York City often impose civil penalties in juryless administrative proceedings. And in just the past few months, Arizona and Louisiana courts declined to apply federal precedent on jury rights when affirming civil penalties.
A win at the Supreme Court would establish a nationwide standard, ensuring jury trials are a constitutional right for civil penalties at all levels of government. Such a ruling would significantly strengthen governmental accountability and protect people from unjust financial ruin.
This petition is part of the Institute for Justice’s broader Fines and Fees Project, which fights against the abusive use of financial penalties by governments. IJ previously argued and won Timbs v. Indiana, a landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments in civil forfeiture cases—an important step in extending full constitutional protections to every American.