Kathy Sarkisian thought that raising backyard chickens would be an excellent way to promote health and wellness by having a reliable source of fresh, organic, non-GMO eggs. What she didn’t know was that her new endeavor would lead to a legal battle with her local government.
The City of the Village of Douglas, Michigan, approved her permit in June 2023, which allowed her to raise chickens in her backyard. She spent over $23,000 on a coop, fencing, and other renovations to make space for her new arrivals. Sarkisian then acquired six hens.
“It was just absolutely perfect,” Sarkisian told WOODTV. “It fit right into everything I believe in.”
Unfortunately, this would spark an ongoing legal rights battle with the city — even after it had approved her permit. The city told her she had to get rid of her chickens after a neighbor objected to her having them.
The city had passed an ordinance in 2020 allowing residents to keep up to six hens for personal use. But, buried within the statute was a poison pill in the form of a provision that allowed any adjacent neighbor to unilaterally block the issuance of the permit. Under this provision, if a neighbor objects within 21 days, the permit “shall not be granted, with no right of appeal.”
This means there is no hearing. Sarkisian was not allowed to make her case. Her neighbor can arbitrarily decide what she can and cannot keep on her own property.
“This isn’t just about chickens,” said Austin Waisanen, a property rights attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which is representing Sarkisian. “It’s about government power being handed over to people who have no accountability and no legal standards to follow.”
The PLF filed a federal lawsuit against the City, arguing that the city is depriving her of the right to enjoy her property without “unreasonable governmental interference.” As her attorneys noted, “The Chicken Ordinance is the very essence of an arbitrary and capricious government action.”
Recommended
The legal complaint filed on Kathy’s behalf argues the city is depriving her of the right to use her property without “unreasonable governmental interference.” As the lawsuit puts it, “The Chicken Ordinance is the very essence of an arbitrary and capricious government action” because “it delegates to a single neighbor the power to compel the City to deny Kathy an ordinary and otherwise legal use of her property.”
Waisanen told Townhall that the ordinance is “an unconstitutional delegation of sovereign power to private people. And it’s not allowed.”
The lawsuit stated that almost 100 years ago, “the US Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for the government to give private third parties the absolute discretion to decide whether and how the City regulates land uses.”
The Supreme Court ruling to which the attorney referred involved Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge in 1928. The Court struck down a city ordinance requiring the consent of two-thirds of neighbors before a home for elderly people could be constructed.
Ben Michael, an attorney with M&A Criminal Defense Attorneys, told Townhall, “If that city has ordinances that specifically give this unique power to neighbors to control chicken ordinances, then there may not be much that can be done to stop that. However, it’s important to note that though local ordinances have power, they don’t override state laws. So, taking this case to a higher level may help.”
The legal complaint notes that “The City told Kathy that she must stop raising chickens, and that she is barred from contesting the neighbor’s decision.” Another section reads: “The City is also imposing daily fines, which continue to mount, and could exceed $200,000—placing Kathy in jeopardy of losing her home as well as her chickens.”
When asked why the neighbor objected, Waisanen replied, “Well, they didn’t have to state a reason, and so that’s part of the fairness issue here.”
He further pointed out that the neighbor’s house is over 100 feet from where the coop was assembled, meaning “it’s invisible and hens are quiet.”
PLF’s complaint alleges that the City has violated two constitutional rights: substantive due process and procedural due process. The former bars the government from delegating power to civilians without standards or accountability. The latter requires that the government notify citizens of the issue while giving them a chance to defend themselves. Sarkisian received neither. The ordinance empowered the neighbor to essentially revoke her permit without notice or a hearing.
The City has issued several citations to Sarkisian for refusing to give up her flock. The fines increase to $300 per day. The ordinance allows no cap on the dollar amount a resident could face in this type of situation. She could be dealing with over $200,000 in fines, an amount that could lead to foreclosure, according to the complaint.
This means Sarkisian and her family are not only fighting for their chickens, but also for their home. She lives with her husband, Sam. Her 94-year-old mother lives with them part-time.
“Failure to pay would permit the City to seek a lien on Kathy’s home, which could ultimately lead to foreclosure,” the complaint reads.
Waisanen argued that this is “very much a property rights case because Kathy’s property rights are subject to the absolute and total whim and caprice of her neighbors.”
“Hopefully it’s relatively unlikely such a large fine will be imposed,” Waisanen said, “but it’s not a complete impossibility.”
PLF views this case as more than a simple dispute over fowl. It could be a precedent-setting case determining whether cities can outsource their regulatory authority to private citizens. This ordinance allows one person to dictate what another can have on their own property — even if it does not negatively affect their quality of life.
“The fact is, is that chickens are allowed in the area, in the zoning district, and the town has just made an egregious mistake in subjecting Cathy's ordinary and permissible language to the approval of her neighbors,” Waisanen said.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member