Imagine you own a home in Carlsbad, California, along a highly valued stretch of coastline. You’ve followed the rules, obtained permits, built a pickleball court, and put up a gate to manage access to your driveway. And then one day, a state agency shows up, holds what seems to be a pre-determined hearing against you, and issues you a fine for $2.4 million — without ever letting you go before a real judge or jury.
That’s not a hypothetical. That’s exactly what happened to John Levy.
Levy is the petitioner in a lawsuit now working its way through the San Diego Superior Court, and his case raises questions that should concern not only every California property owner but every American who believes that government power needs limits.
Last October, the California Coastal Commission, the powerful state agency that regulates activity along the coast, ordered Levy to pay $1.4 million immediately (with a potential additional $1 million), tear out the pickleball court, remove a vehicular gate, open a pedestrian gate onto his private property where public access doesn’t currently exist, and undertake extensive habitat work.
The commission claims that Levy’s past actions harmed some protected portions of his property, and that two lawfully constructed gates block areas of potential public access —but Levy (and the city) dispute whether the areas in question are true areas of public access. The commission told Levy to round up the cash and pay — including the penalty payment — by March 2026, a matter of months.
Levy, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), argues the commission cannot have unilaterally imposed these massive fines without first affording him due process—including review by a court.
How does this happen in America in 2026, where the Constitution requires due process before finding someone guilty? It helps to understand how the commission operates. A new PLF research brief lays it out starkly: the commission functions simultaneously as prosecutor, judge, and jury in its own enforcement proceedings. There’s no neutral arbiter. Commission staff present the case against you, and their bosses, the Coastal Commissioners, decide your guilt.
The fines and other penalties the commission imposes by its one-sided process can be eye-watering. Since 2014, the commission has had the power to assess penalties of up to $11,250 per violation, per day, every day you do not comply. Over just eight years, the commission collected nearly $40 million in penalties from property owners under 31 cease-and-desist orders — averaging about $1.3 million per order. Adding in non-monetary demands, such as land dedication and mandatory construction of public amenities, the total financial burden on those property owners exceeded $48 million, or roughly $1.6 million per order. Effectively, the commission regulates for profit, filling its own pockets with massive fines.
The commission’s own data suggest something troubling is happening. After gaining direct penalty authority in 2014, the average case resolution time dropped from over 1,000 days to about 100 days. By 2024, staff were, on average, closing cases in just 43 days.
The commission celebrated this as a compliance success. But property owners buckling under financial pressure isn’t necessarily justice. When fines are steep enough, and the process is opaque enough, people don’t fight back — not because they admit they’re guilty, but because with massive fines piling up day-by-day, they can’t afford the risk of losing. And sure enough the commission often dangles a carrot in front of property owners: Comply quickly and avoid a fine. And if you don’t give in? We will ruin you.
The research brief puts it plainly: most property owners, facing the threat of ruinous penalties and a process that lacks clarity and predictability, don’t challenge the commission at all.
John Levy did. He sued to vindicate his constitutional rights to a fair and impartial process in which he can show he didn’t violate the Coastal Act, before he’s deemed guilty.
In court, Levy argues the orders against him are not supported by substantial evidence, contradict the Coastal Act itself, and violate his constitutional rights, including his right to a jury trial and his protection against excessive fines under both the U.S. and California constitutions. He has asked the court to stay the commission’s enforcement of the orders while the case proceeds, on the grounds that requiring him to comply with orders he’s actively contesting — paying $1.4 million and tearing down structures — would cause irreparable harm. Money spent cannot be returned. Structures removed cannot be easily rebuilt.
Notably, Levy isn’t stonewalling on public access. After the orders were issued, he voluntarily opened the vehicular gate at issue. The City of Carlsbad posted signage indicating the driveway beyond it is open to public use. He argues that none of the other alleged violations actually inhibit existing public access or present any immediate environmental risk.
What’s at stake in this case is bigger than one man’s home. It’s about whether a state agency can act as lawmaker, investigator, prosecutor, judge, and enforcement arm all at once — handing out million-dollar penalties without the basic procedural protections Americans take for granted everywhere else. The Coastal Commission—whose members are appointed, not elected—has been called the most unaccountable government agency in the nation. But it is still subject to the rule of law. Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Coastal Commission abused its authority when it illegally tried to override a county-issued building permit, so there are certainly more examples of abuse out there.
The Coastal Commission has never once found a property owner innocent of a violation. Not once. That’s a remarkable, and revealing, statistic. This should tell you all you need to know something about how fair and impartial the commission’s process really is.
The commission must give John Levy a fair trial before imposing ruinous fines and penalties. As does every Californian who may find themselves in the government’s crosshairs.
Jeremy Talcott is an attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation’s Property Rights practice and represents John Levy in his lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission. Kyle Sweetland is a strategic research manager at Pacific Legal Foundation.