Michigan woman faces absurd $80,000 in fines after city revokes her legally obtained backyard chicken permit following a single neighbor complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Kathryn Sarkisian obtained a permit for six backyard chickens, invested $23,000 in a coop and fence, only for Douglas, Michigan officials to later revoke it without due process.
- The city is imposing $300 daily fines that could exceed $80,000, possibly reaching $200,000, without clarifying the start date.
- Two legal defense groups have joined Sarkisian’s federal lawsuit, arguing the city ordinance violates her 14th Amendment rights by allowing neighbors unchecked veto power.
- The case highlights growing tensions between local government overreach and property rights, particularly as the USDA encourages Americans to raise backyard chickens.
City Bureaucracy Turns Against Homeowner After Neighbor Complaint
What began as a simple desire to keep backyard chickens has transformed into a legal nightmare for Douglas, Michigan resident Kathryn Sarkisian. After receiving proper permits from city officials in 2023, Sarkisian invested $23,000 in constructing a chicken coop and privacy fence for her six chickens. Her investment and compliance with city regulations meant nothing when a single neighbor complained outside the designated objection period, prompting the city to revoke her permit without warning, written notice, or any opportunity to appeal the decision.
“I was raised in a family that loves this country, that believes in our freedom, that’s grateful for people who fought and who still fight for our freedoms. And those freedoms and rights are very near and dear to me,” said Kathryn Sarkisian.
Crushing Financial Penalties Without Due Process
The city’s response to Sarkisian’s refusal to remove her chickens has been nothing short of government overreach at its worst. Since November 2024, Douglas has been imposing a punitive $300 daily fine, which has accumulated to nearly $80,000. Even more troubling, city officials have refused to clarify the exact start date for these fines, potentially pushing the total liability over $200,000 – an astronomical sum for the simple act of keeping backyard chickens that were initially permitted by the same government now fining her.
“Are you kidding me? This is our right. These are my chickens,” said Kathryn Sarkisian.
Constitutional Rights at Stake in Federal Lawsuit
Sarkisian has not backed down in the face of this government intimidation. With support from both the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) and the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), she has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The suit alleges the city ordinance violates her 14th Amendment due process rights by allowing neighbors to exercise what PLF’s complaint describes as “a standardless and unreviewable veto over Kathy’s use of her own property.”
“a standardless and unreviewable veto over Kathy’s use of her own property,” states the PLF’s complaint.
Government Hypocrisy on Food Independence
The timing of this case adds another layer of absurdity, as it comes while USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has been actively encouraging Americans to raise backyard chickens. “Make it easier for families to raise backyard chickens,” urged Secretary Rollins, apparently unaware that local bureaucrats are doing exactly the opposite. This case represents a clear example of government overreach hampering individual food independence and property rights at a time when more Americans are seeking self-sufficiency in response to inflation and supply chain concerns.
“make it easier for families to raise backyard chickens,” said USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.
A Pattern of Local Government Overreach
Sarkisian’s case is unfortunately not isolated, as other Michigan towns have faced similar legal challenges regarding backyard poultry ordinances. The FTCLDF has invited members facing comparable issues with local ordinances to contact them for support, indicating a widespread pattern of local governments interfering with citizens’ reasonable property use. The outcome of this case could set an important precedent for property rights across Michigan and potentially nationwide, determining whether local governments can arbitrarily revoke permits and impose crushing fines without proper due process.
