Judicial interpretation of the Seventh Amendment
The Seventh Amendment encompasses two clauses. The Preservation Clause ("In Suits at
common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved") sets out the types of cases juries are required to decide, while the Re-
examination Clause ("[N]o 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.") prevents federal judges
from overturning jury verdicts in certain ways.[16] The amendment is generally considered one
of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. Scholar Charles W. Wolfram
states that it has usually "been interpreted as if it were virtually a self-explanatory provision".[17]
[18] The term "common law" is used twice in the Seventh Amendment and means in both cases
according to the National Constitution Center "the law and procedure of the courts that used
juries, as opposed to Equity and other courts that did not use juries".[16]
Unlike most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Seventh Amendment has never been
applied to the states. The Supreme Court stated in Walker v. Sauvinet (1875), Minneapolis & St.
Louis Railroad v. Bombolis (1916) and Hardware Dealers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v.
Glidden Co. (1931) that states were not required to provide jury trials in civil cases.[18]
Nonetheless, most states voluntarily guarantee the right to a civil jury trial,[19] and they must do
so in certain state court cases that are decided under federal law.[20]
Historical test
Justice Joseph Story issued the first judicial opinion on the amendment in United States v.
Wonson (1812).[21]
The first judicial opinion issued on the amendment came in United States v. Wonson (1812), in
which the federal government wished to retry the facts of a civil case it had lost against Samuel
Wonson.[21] Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, acting as a circuit court judge, ruled for
Wonson, stating that to retry the facts of the case would violate the Seventh Amendment.
Regarding the amendment's phrase "the rules of common law", Story wrote:
Beyond all question, the common law here alluded to is not the common law of any individual
state, (for it probably differs in all), but it is the common law of England, the grand reservoir of
all our jurisprudence. It cannot be necessary for me to expound the grounds of this opinion,
because they must be obvious to every person acquainted with the history of the law.[22]
Wonson's ruling established the historical test, which interpreted the amendment as relying on
English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit.[16] Applying
the historical test in Parsons v. Bedford (1830), for example, the Supreme Court found that jury
trials were not constitutionally guaranteed for cases under maritime law, an area in which
English common law did not require juries. The Court further clarified this rule as a fixed
historical test in Thompson v. Utah (1898), which established that the relevant guide was
English common law of 1791, rather than that of the present day.[18] In Dimick v. Schiedt (1935),
the Supreme Court declared that the Seventh Amendment was to be interpreted according to
the common law of England at the time of the amendment's adoption in 1791.[16] The Supreme
Court in Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935) declared that the right of trial by jury
thus preserved by the Preservation Clause is the right which existed under the English common
law when the amendment was adopted.[23] "The amendment not only preserves that right, but
discloses a studied purpose to protect it from indirect impairment through possible
enlargements of the power of reexamination existing under the common law, and, to that end,
declares that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United
States, than according to the rules of the common law.""[24] In Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v.
Redman (1935), the Supreme Court held that the amendment does not include "mere matters
of form or procedure", but instead preserves the "substance" of the right to jury trial.[16] The
aim of the amendment is particularly to retain the common law distinction between the
province of the court and that of the jury whereby, in the absence of express or implied consent
to the contrary, issues of law are to be resolved by the court and issues of fact are to be
determined by the jury under appropriate instructions by the court.[25] In Chauffeurs, Teamsters,
and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry (1990), the Court explained that the right to a jury trial
provided by the Seventh Amendment encompasses more than the common law forms of action
recognized in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified), but rather any lawsuit in which parties'
legal rights were to be determined, as opposed to suits that involve only equitable rights and
remedies.[26]
In Galloway v. United States (1943), the Court permitted a directed verdict (a verdict ordered by
a judge on the basis of overwhelming lack of evidence) in a civil suit, finding that it did not
violate the Seventh Amendment under the fixed historical test.[18] The Court extended the
amendment's guarantees in Beacon Theatres v. Westover (1959) and Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood
(1962), ruling in each case that all issues that required trial by jury under English common law
also required trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment.[8] This guarantee was also further
extended to shareholder suits in Ross v. Bernhard (1970)[8] and to copyright infringement
lawsuits in Feltner v. Columbia Pictures TV (1998).[18]
In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996), the Court ruled that many parts of patent
claims are questions of law rather than of fact, and that the Seventh Amendment guarantee of
a jury trial therefore does not necessarily apply.
Lawsuits against the federal government itself do not receive Seventh Amendment protections
due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In Lehman v. Nakshian (1981), the Court ruled that
"the plaintiff in an action against the United States has a right to trial by jury only where
Congress has affirmatively and unambiguously granted that right by statute."[27]
Jury size
The Supreme Court has held that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial also
guarantees a jury of sufficient size. The Court found a six-member jury sufficient to meet the
amendment's requirements in Colgrove v. Battin (1973).[16]
Twenty-dollars requirement
Little historical evidence exists to interpret the amendment's reference to "twenty dollars",
which was added in a closed session of the Senate and is often omitted in judicial and scholarly
discussion of the amendment. A Harvard Law Review article described it as "mysterious ... of
shrouded origin and neglected for two centuries", stating that "no one believes that the Clause
bears on the right protected by the Seventh Amendment".[28] According to law professor Philip
Hamburger, the twenty-dollar requirement was intended to become obsolete by inflation, so
that its application to more cases would be phased out gradually.[29] $20 in 1800 is equivalent to
$320 in 2021.[2]
Congress has never extended federal diversity jurisdiction to amounts that small. Under federal
law (28 U.S.C. §1332), the amount in dispute must exceed $75,000 for a case to be heard in
federal court based on diversity of the parties' citizenship (the parties are from different states
or different countries).[30] However, civil cases may arise in federal court that are not diversity
cases (e.g., in places like the District of Columbia that are federal jurisdictions), in which case
the Twenty Dollars Clause may apply.[31]
Re-examination of facts
The Re-Examination Clause of the Seventh Amendment states: "In suits at common law, ... no
fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law."[16] This clause forbids any court from re-examining
or overturning any factual determinations made by a jury guaranteeing that facts decided by
that jury cannot be reexamined at a later date.[32][33] Exceptions to this prohibition are possible if
it is later determined that legal errors were made or evidence submitted was insufficient in
some way. In such cases the re-examination is conducted by another jury so the decision is still
left in the hands of the people.[33] The clause applies only to cases where private rights—i.e.,
rights that exist between private citizens—have been violated.[33] The Re-Examination Clause
applies not only to federal courts, but also to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and
brought to the Supreme Court on appeal".[34]
In The Justices v. Murray, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 274 (1869), the Supreme Court quoted Justice Joseph
Story to explain the modes to reexamine facts tried by juries according to common law: "Mr.
Justice Story ... referring to this part of the amendment, observed ... that it was 'a prohibition to
the courts of the United States to re-examine any facts tried by a jury in any other manner
[than according to Common Law]'. ... He further observed that 'the only modes known to the
common law to re-examine such facts was the granting of a new trial by the court where the
issue was tried, or the award of a venire facias de novo, by the appellate court, for some error
of law that had intervened in the proceedings.'"[1]
As common law provided, the judge could set aside (or nullify) a jury verdict when the judge
decided the verdict was contrary to the evidence or the law. Common law precluded the judge
from himself entering a verdict; a new trial, with a new jury, was the only course permissible. In
Slocum v. New York Insurance Co. (1913), the Supreme Court upheld this rule. Later cases have
undermined Slocum, but generally only when the evidence is overwhelming, or if a specific law
provides narrow guidelines by which there can be no reasonable question as to the required
outcome, may the court enter "judgment as a matter of law" or otherwise set aside the jury's
findings.
References
"Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935), at 627". Justia Law. Justia US
Supreme Court Center. June 3, 1935. Retrieved March 27, 2022.
"Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935), at 627". Justia Law. Justia US
Supreme Court Center. June 3, 1935. Retrieved March 27, 2022.
"Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935), at 627". Justia Law. Justia US
Supreme Court Center. June 3, 1935. Retrieved March 27, 2022.
Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990)
"Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 30, 2019.
"The Twenty Dollars Clause". The Harvard Law Review. March 1, 2005.[dead link]
Hamburger, Philip. "The Constitution's Accommodation of Social Change", Michigan Law
Review, Vol. 88, pp. 296–97 (1989).
Baicker-Mckee, p. 1266
Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1 (1899).
"The First Ten Amendments or The Bill of Rights". Revolutionary War and Beyond. Archived from
the original on April 26, 2020. Retrieved January 13, 2015.
"The 7th Amendment". Revolutionary War and Beyond. Archived from the original on June 18,
2020. Retrieved January 13, 2015.
"Amendments to the Constitution: Seventh Amendment—Civil Trials". Constitution of the United
States of America: lAnalysis, and Interpretation – 1992 Edition. U.S. Government Printing Office.
1992. p. 1464. Archived from the original on May 19, 2020. Retrieved July 4, 2013.
