In rejecting the petition for writ of certiorari filed in May by a group of Northern California landowners, the high court opted not to examine whether the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to state-level proceedings.
It is an issue that the nation's highest court has not considered since a 1916 case, Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Bombolis
, when incorporation doctrine — which holds that the Bill of Rights applies to the states — had not fully developed.In a statement accompanying the petition's denial, Justice Neil Gorsuch said, "I do not doubt that Bombolis warrants a second look." But he said this case was a poor vehicle for doing so.
"That Bombolis lingers on the books not only leaves our law misshapen, it subjects ordinary Americans to a two-tiered system of justice," Justice Gorsuch wrote.
His statement continued, "Bombolis may survive today, but this court should confront its Seventh Amendment holding soon."
Robert Johnson, a senior attorney at the libertarian Institute for Justice, or IJ, which represented the petitioners, said in a statement, "Justice Gorsuch is right. 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."
The petitioners were a group of property owners — Corrine and Doug Thomas, Blu Graham, Rhonda Olson and Cyro Glad — who sought to revive a claim they brought under the Seventh Amendment against officials in Humboldt County, California, in connection with a crackdown on allegedly illegal cannabis growers.
The Ninth Circuit in December revived most of the landowners' constitutional claims — which alleged county authorities were overzealous in their efforts to crack down on illicit marijuana cultivation — but upheld the dismissal of the group's Seventh Amendment claim that they were deprived of a jury trial.
The landowners' suit, originally filed in October 2022, claimed that since California legalized marijuana, Humboldt County, located along California's northern coast, adopted a policy of issuing cannabis-related abatement orders without probable cause to those suspected of growing cannabis without a license. Authorities' suspicions were based largely on satellite images of the properties or the alleged conduct of the properties' previous owners.
The property owners alleged that as part of this effort, Humboldt officials imposed millions of dollars in unconstitutionally excessive fines in violation of property owners' due process rights and coerced unconstitutional settlements, forcing the homeowners to waive constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in the future.
In May 2023, a federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice, saying the county's enforcement was "even-handed, proportionate, nondiscriminatory and nonarbitrary."
The Ninth Circuit panel in December largely reversed the lower court's decision, concluding the landowners plausibly pled a host of constitutional claims, including violations of substantive due process and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.
The dismissal of the petitioners' Seventh Amendment claim, however, was upheld because of the century-old Bombolis precedent, which held that a right to a jury trial in civil matters only applies to federal proceedings, setting the stage for the instant review before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"No one should face life-altering fines without the protection of a jury of their peers," said Jared McClain, an attorney with IJ and lead counsel for the petitioners. "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."
In his statement accompanying dismissal of the petition, Justice Gorsuch cited the arguments advanced by Humboldt County officials, who argued that the case was a bad test for reexamining Bombolis. Justice Gorsuch said "a number of 'vehicle' problems make it unlikely that we could [reconsider Bombolis] in this case."
The county asserted in its July opposition filing that it was not appropriate for the justices to review the Seventh Amendment claim while the underlying lawsuit played out because the county "vigorously contested" the landowners' allegations, discovery was ongoing at the lower court level and the case record had not been established.
"As it stands, the court would be left to decide a case of great importance on disputed and incomplete facts. Any cert-worthy issue here should await development of a full record," the county said.
The property owners are represented by Jared McClain, Robert Johnson, Samuel B. Gedge and Michael Peña of the Institute for Justice, and Derek M. Mayor and Kaylee Sheldon of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
Humboldt County, its officials and co-defendants are represented by Michael G. Colantuono, Pamela K. Graham and Matthew C. Slentz of Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley PC.
The case is Corrine Morgan Thomas et al. v. County of Humboldt, California, et al., case number 24-1180, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
--Editing by Michael Watanabe.
Update: This article has been updated with additional comments.