The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution forms part of the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791. It guarantees the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and limits the ability of courts to overturn a jury’s findings of fact. While the more frequently discussed Sixth Amendment protects the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, the Seventh Amendment provides similar protections for civil litigation under federal jurisdiction.
This amendment reflects the founders’ deep respect for the English common law system and their desire to prevent judicial tyranny. In colonial America, trial by jury was often seen as a bulwark against arbitrary power, especially as practiced by British colonial judges. Hence, the protection of jury trials in civil suits was a major concern during the Constitutional Convention and ratification debates.
II. Historical Background
A. English Common Law Origins
To fully understand the Seventh Amendment, it is essential to appreciate its roots in English legal tradition. Under English common law, the right to a jury trial in civil cases had become a customary practice. Jury trials were seen not just as a procedural formality but as a means of protecting individual rights, ensuring fairness, and distributing power between the judiciary and the people.
Colonial Americans inherited this tradition and became particularly sensitive to any threats against it. Leading up to the American Revolution, many colonists viewed the British government’s efforts to curtail jury trials—especially through courts of admiralty and other special tribunals—as a direct assault on their rights.
B. Debate at the Constitutional Convention
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the lack of an explicit guarantee of jury trials in civil cases sparked opposition. Some feared the new federal judiciary could override state court traditions and strip individuals of their right to a jury trial.
This concern was a driving force behind the push for a Bill of Rights. Federalists initially resisted amending the Constitution, arguing that existing rights were sufficiently protected, but anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry and George Mason demanded specific guarantees. The result was the Seventh Amendment, which explicitly preserved this key aspect of civil justice.
III. Breakdown of the Text
Let’s now examine the exact wording of the amendment, breaking it down into its two primary clauses:
A. “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…”
This clause contains several key elements:
- “Suits at common law” – This phrase refers to civil actions traditionally heard in English common law courts, such as those involving contract disputes, torts (like negligence), and property claims. It does not include equitable claims (like injunctions or specific performance), which were historically heard in courts of equity and decided by judges alone.
- “Exceed twenty dollars” – This monetary threshold was significant at the time of ratification. Although $20 was worth considerably more in the late 18th century, the clause still stands today. However, because of the increase in the jurisdictional minimums for federal courts (currently $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction), the “twenty dollars” threshold is rarely, if ever, directly relevant today.
- “Right of trial by jury shall be preserved” – This phrase clearly mandates that if the case falls within the parameters of a common law civil action, the litigants are entitled to a jury trial. Congress or the courts cannot arbitrarily take this right away.
B. “…and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
This second clause is known as the Re-examination Clause. It protects the finality of jury findings, ensuring that judges cannot override a jury’s determinations of fact unless permitted by historical procedures under common law.
For example, while appellate courts can review whether a trial was legally proper, they generally cannot second-guess what the jury decided based on evidence unless the decision was clearly unsupported or involved legal error.
IV. Legal Interpretation and Case Law
A. Scope and Application
The Seventh Amendment applies only to federal courts. It has not been “incorporated” against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning it does not apply directly in state court civil trials. However, most state constitutions and statutes independently guarantee the right to a jury trial in civil cases.
B. U.S. Supreme Court Interpretation
- Colgrove v. Battin (1973)
The Court upheld the use of six-person juries in civil trials, finding that the Seventh Amendment does not require 12 jurors, as long as the essential purpose of the jury is preserved. - Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
In a patent infringement case, the Court held that interpreting the meaning of patent claims is a matter for judges, not juries. This highlighted the line between questions of law (for judges) and questions of fact (for juries), a key distinction under the Seventh Amendment. - Dimick v. Schiedt (1935)
This case dealt with the issue of additur—when a judge increases the amount of damages awarded by a jury. The Court found that this practice violated the Seventh Amendment because it infringed on the jury’s fact-finding role. However, remittitur (reducing jury damages with plaintiff’s consent) was allowed.
V. Modern Application and Challenges
A. Civil Jury Trials Today
Despite the constitutional guarantee, civil jury trials have become less common in modern American courts. The vast majority of civil cases settle before reaching trial. Additionally, mechanisms like summary judgment, arbitration, and administrative proceedings have reduced the practical use of jury trials.
Still, the Seventh Amendment remains a critical safeguard. Litigants often assert it when they fear undue judicial intervention or when they want factual determinations made by a jury of peers rather than a judge.
B. Administrative and Equitable Proceedings
A significant question in modern jurisprudence is whether administrative law or equity-based proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment. Because the amendment only applies to “suits at common law,” courts have often found that administrative proceedings (like those before agencies such as the SEC or OSHA) do not require jury trials. This has drawn criticism, especially from originalists who see such proceedings as bypassing a fundamental constitutional guarantee.
VI. Contrasts with Other Amendments
A. Sixth vs. Seventh Amendments
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal prosecutions, which differs significantly in scope and procedure. The Seventh Amendment, by contrast, addresses civil disputes and operates under different standards (e.g., unanimous verdicts are not always required in civil cases).
B. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
While the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process, the Seventh focuses specifically on procedural form—jury trial and the sanctity of jury verdicts. Some legal theorists argue that the right to a civil jury trial should be extended to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, but the Supreme Court has declined to do so.
VII. Comparative and International Perspectives
In many other democratic nations, civil jury trials are rare or nonexistent. For instance:
- United Kingdom: Civil juries are now used only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., defamation cases).
- Germany and France: Civil cases are handled by professional judges, often with lay judges assisting, but no civil jury system exists.
The U.S. remains one of the few countries where civil jury trials are both constitutionally guaranteed and still regularly used, even if less frequently than in the past.
VIII. The Twenty Dollar Clause in Context
The “twenty dollar” threshold, though symbolic today, reminds us that the Founders believed even modest claims deserved the protection of a jury. In 1791, $20 had significantly more purchasing power than it does today (roughly $600–$700 in today’s dollars), but the spirit of the clause endures as a commitment to fairness in dispute resolution.
That said, federal courts today rarely entertain cases involving such low dollar amounts, since jurisdictional thresholds (like the $75,000 minimum in diversity cases) mean that smaller claims are usually handled in state courts or through small claims procedures.
IX. Criticisms and Controversies
A. Efficiency vs. Fairness
Critics of civil jury trials argue that they are time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes unpredictable. Juries may be swayed by emotion or lack the technical expertise needed for complex cases, such as those involving patents or corporate law.
Proponents, however, assert that juries act as a democratic check on judicial power and bring a measure of public participation and accountability into the legal system.
B. Jury Nullification and Bias
Although more of an issue in criminal trials, civil juries can also be unpredictable or influenced by factors outside the legal merits of a case. Some scholars have questioned whether the modern jury system needs reform, such as through increased judicial oversight or juror education programs.
X. Conclusion
The Seventh Amendment remains a cornerstone of the American legal system, protecting a right rooted deeply in Anglo-American history. Though its use has diminished over time, the amendment serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of popular participation in justice and the enduring value of jury trials as a means of protecting individual rights in civil disputes.
Whether viewed as a symbol of historical continuity or a living tool for civil justice, the Seventh Amendment embodies the founders’ belief that ordinary citizens—not just legal elites—should help decide the fate of their peers in matters of law and equity.
Visit: https://inlandempirelitigation.com/
Law Offices of James R. Dickinson – 909-848-8448
How To Schedule A Consultation:
Please call us at 909-848-8448 to schedule a free consultation/case evaluation or complete the form immediately below. [Please note certain formalities must be completed to retain the Law Offices of James R. Dickinson, such as the signing of a legal fee agreement [see “Disclaimers”]].
