Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

The fear that the state would use its legal muscle to take away our liberties was so great that the writers of the Bill of Rights needed two amendments to cover it all.

Three if you count the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial.

If the Fifth Amendment provides more general procedural protections, then the Sixth Amendment is more specific.

Here's what it says.

And the Department of Labor affirmed the award.

And when they went to court to enforce it, Sun Valley argued that it had been denied its right to an Article III court and a Seventh Amendment right to civil jury trial because breach of contract suits in employment matters would have been heard at the time of the framing by the courts of law, which are Article III courts.

Technically, in England, such a case would have been brought before the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, which was a court of law.

And so relying on a two-year-old Supreme Court precedent, SEC against Jarcosy, which held that the SEC, in enforcing the civil fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act, had to proceed in an Article III court and afford Jarcosy a right to a Seventh Amendment civil jury trial.

The Sun Valley relied on the Jarkesee case and argued they should have been allowed to go to Article III court and get a civil jury trial as well.

The district court ruled against Sun Valley, but the Third Circuit reversed and found Jarkesee applicable, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court.

And the reason that Attorney General Meese and Attorney General Casey and Gary Lawson and I filed the amicus brief is because we think the principle that SEC against jarcacy stands for, that when administrative agencies bring what are in essence cases in law against private citizens or persons, that to fine them hundreds of thousands, or in some cases, millions of dollars, that they have a right to a life-tenured Article III judge and to a Seventh Amendment jury trial in those cases.

notwithstanding a Supreme Court precedent called Atlas Roofing Company against OSHA, which I assume we'll talk about later.

But let's assume technology solves gate two eventually.

That brings us to gate three, which seems like the absolute highest wall of all, the Seventh Amendment.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial for suits at common law.

And a recent massive Supreme Court case from 2024, SEC v. Jarkese, forcefully reinforced this exact boundary.

The court ruled that if you are seeking common law money damages, like patent infringement damages to punish a competitor, you are constitutionally entitled to a human jury.

Do you know when you can exercise this right? The answer is in the Constitution.

The Seventh Amendment says that you can have your case decided by a jury whenever the amount involved is greater than $20.

This is one of the ways in which the Constitution seeks to provide every citizen with fair and impartial justice.

It is one of the ways in which the Constitution ensures that this country of yours and mine shall be our country under God.

I so appreciate being here and thank you, Beverly Hills Bar Association for welcoming me.

I am the incoming president for the American Board of Trial Advocates National, and it's really fun to talk about the different things that our practice covers and the ways that it affects us as individuals and our continued pursuit for democracy And the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial.

So those are all the things that I know are important to you.

They're important to me.

The judge tells the defendant, I am granting a new trial unless you agree to pay more money.

But in the 1935 case, Dimmock v. Scheidt, the Supreme Court ruled that Aditor explicitly violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in federal courts.

So a federal judge can force a plaintiff to take less money with remitter, but it's constitutionally banned from forcing a defendant to pay more money with Aditor.

How does the Seventh Amendment only protect one side?

The historical reasoning in Dimmick v. Schitt is highly formalistic.

The court argued that with remittitor, when the judge lowers the number, the final lower sum is still technically a sum that the jury approved because it is mathematically subsumed within the larger number they originally awarded.

It is a wild distinction.

But there is a massive state court difference here.

Before a court can even evaluate the evidence, we have to establish who actually gets to weigh that evidence.

And that brings us right to the threshold, which is the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Right, so the Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in suits at common law, where the value in controversy exceeds $20.

Now, right out of the gate, there are two massive misconceptions we need to clear up for exams.

Oh, definitely.

They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Precisely.

And second, the Seventh Amendment governs only federal civil proceedings.

You have them to use at your discretion.

Your Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendment rights procedures, spa, speech, press assembly, right to assemble.

You have all these rights.

You use them when you want, not when the public and media deems that somebody should and shouldn't use them to prove their case.