A Michigan woman faces $80,000 in fines after the city of Douglas reversed her chicken-raising permit due to a single neighbor’s complaint, igniting a constitutional battle over property rights and government overreach.
Key Takeaways
- Kathryn Sarkisian invested $23,000 in a chicken coop after receiving a city permit, only to have it revoked a year later without due process
- Douglas city officials imposed crushing $300 daily fines totaling nearly $80,000, potentially rising to over $200,000
- Two legal defense groups have filed a federal lawsuit arguing the city’s ordinance violates 14th Amendment due process protections
- The ordinance allows a single neighbor to effectively veto a resident’s property rights without providing standards or an appeal process
- The case highlights growing tensions between food sovereignty movements and restrictive local ordinances
From Permit to Punishment: How One Complaint Changed Everything
In 2023, Kathryn Sarkisian received official permission from Douglas, Michigan officials to raise six chickens in her backyard. Trusting the city’s approval, she invested $23,000 to construct a state-of-the-art chicken coop and privacy fence that met all requirements. Her careful planning and significant investment demonstrated her commitment to responsible urban farming. However, what should have been a straightforward exercise of limited property rights quickly transformed into a nightmarish legal battle when a single neighbor complained outside the designated objection period.
The city’s response was swift and severe. Without providing adequate notice or opportunity for appeal, Douglas officials revoked Sarkisian’s permit and began imposing $300 daily fines in November 2024. These penalties have accumulated to approximately $80,000, with the potential to exceed $200,000 as the city has not clarified the exact start date for the fines. The financial burden threatens to devastate Sarkisian’s finances while raising serious questions about municipal government overreach and constitutional protections.
“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.
Constitutional Challenge: 14th Amendment Rights Under Threat
Facing financial ruin over her backyard chickens, Sarkisian has enlisted powerful legal allies to challenge what they see as a clear violation of constitutional rights. The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a lawsuit on her behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, arguing that Douglas’s chicken ordinance violates her 14th Amendment due process rights. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) has also joined the fight, highlighting the broader implications for property rights and food sovereignty nationwide.
At the heart of the legal challenge is the ordinance’s problematic structure, which effectively grants neighbors unilateral veto power over another resident’s property use without establishing clear standards or providing any meaningful appeal process. The Pacific Legal Foundation’s complaint describes the ordinance as creating “a standardless and unreviewable veto over Kathy’s use of her own property.” This arrangement, the lawsuit argues, fundamentally undermines constitutional protections against arbitrary government action.
“Are you kidding me? This is our right. These are my chickens,” said Kathryn Sarkisian.
Broader Implications for Food Sovereignty
Sarkisian’s case emerges at a pivotal moment in the national conversation about food sovereignty and local food production. The legal battle coincides with USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins’ recent push to “make it easier for families to raise backyard chickens.” This federal encouragement stands in stark contrast to the punitive measures imposed by Douglas officials, highlighting the growing tension between individual rights, food security interests, and restrictive local regulations.
Similar legal challenges regarding backyard poultry ordinances have emerged across Michigan and other states as more Americans seek greater control over their food sources. The outcome of Sarkisian’s case could establish important precedents for how municipalities can regulate small-scale agriculture without violating constitutional protections. For now, Sarkisian remains determined to fight for both her chickens and the principle of limited government, while the FTCLDF has invited members facing similar issues with local ordinances to contact them for support.
