© 2025 | Jefferson Public Radio
Southern Oregon University
1250 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, OR 97520
541.552.6301 | 800.782.6191
Listen | Discover | Engage a service of Southern Oregon University
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Humboldt residents win right to challenge millions in cannabis fines

Humboldt County resident Rhonda Olson is fighting against millions of dollars in fines due to the previous owner of her home's unpermitted construction.
Institute for Justice
Humboldt County resident Rhonda Olson is fighting against millions of dollars in fines due to the previous owner of her home's unpermitted construction.

A recent decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows Humboldt residents to fight against county cannabis fines they claim are unconstitutional.

Late last month the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Humboldt residents challenging county fines for past owners’ illegal cannabis operations. Their class-action lawsuit claims those penalties violate the constitution, including the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines. The 9th Circuit decision will make it easier for residents from California to Alaska to challenge potentially unconstitutional penalties. JPR’s Justin Higginbottom spoke with attorney Jared McClain with the Institute for Justice who represents those suing the county.

Justin Higginbottom: Can you tell me what this lawsuit was all about and how your firm discovered it?

Jared McClain: We found this case back in April 2022. We came across an article in a local news website called the Redheaded Blackbelt in Humboldt County, which was highlighting how innocent purchasers of property were being hit with millions of dollars in cannabis-related fines based on the conduct of the prior owner. Then we did some more digging into what was going on in Humboldt and realized just how many constitutional issues there were. The county will rely almost exclusively on old satellite images and it will look for any building or trees cut down, or anything that would require a permit for which someone has not actually obtained a permit. And instead of just going after them for not getting a permit, they assumed that the reason they didn't get a permit was because they were growing weed illegally. And that assumption puts you into a new category of fine. So it's a daily minimum fine of $6,000 and they order you to return the land to its pre-cannabis state. And for a lot of people, the only way to do that is to get permits, like demolition permits, if they will let you which often they won't. Because you're accused of growing cannabis you aren't eligible for the permits. So you're just stuck in this purgatory where these daily fines are accumulating and there's no way for you to fix it.

Justin Higginbottom: So this was surprising for some people who recently purchased property and then started getting fines for whatever was happening on the property before?

Jared McClain: That’s right. And if you actually look at our clients' cases, some of these violations were two to three years old and they still weren't recorded against the land. And so when our clients bought the property, a clear title and no violation showed up. And then within days of them buying it the county issued the fines. And so some one of our clients said it felt like the county was lying in wait. Our client Rhonda Olson, for instance, was facing $7.4 million in fines for a piece of property that she just bought for $60,000. And she couldn't get a hearing. The county acknowledged in emails that they knew that she was not the one who had done the illegal grading and that she was not the one who had grown cannabis on the property. It was the prior owner.

Justin Higginbottom: And can you talk about the 9th Circuit decision? What did that court decide recently?

Jared McClain: In April 2023, the trial court dismissed our case in its entirety. We brought five constitutional claims. Then in two opinions, the 9th Circuit reversed the trial court almost in its entirety. The 9th Circuit, in what was its first decision ever setting this rule, held that you can challenge an excessive fine before you pay it. And so that means that anytime, whether it's a cannabis fine or any other fine, if the government is imposing an unconstitutional fine on you, you don't have to pay it before you can go into federal court. And that's a big deal for people, because the opposite rule would make it so basically only rich people can get justice.

Justin Higginbottom: So the plaintiffs here now have a right to challenge these fines?

Jared McClain: Based on the 9th Circuit's decision, it sort of limits the trial court's ability to kick our case out of court again because the 9th Circuit has already ruled that if this stuff happened, it would violate the Constitution. And so now the case is just about proving that stuff happened.

Justin Higginbottom is a regional reporter for Jefferson Public Radio. He's worked in print and radio journalism in Utah as well as abroad with stints in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. He spent a year reporting on the Myanmar civil war and has contributed to NPR, CNBC and Deutsche Welle (Germany’s public media organization).