The Seventh Amendment
Juries in civil cases
Preserves the right to a jury trial in federal civil lawsuits and limits judges from overriding what juries decide.
Ratified 1791 · 3 minute read
Published by Quasi-Legal Institute · Report an error
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, 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.
In plain language
Civil cases about money
“Suits at common law” are lawsuits seeking legal remedies, mostly money damages. The twenty-dollar figure is still in the text and has never been formally changed.
Civil, not criminal
The Sixth Amendment covers juries in criminal cases. The Seventh covers civil ones: disputes between private parties, or between a person and the government, over contracts, injuries, and similar claims.
The phrase “common law” was explained in Parsons v. Bedford (1830). It distinguishes cases decided under the common law, where a jury could sit, from equity and admiralty cases, which historically were decided by a judge. A request for money damages usually triggers the right; a request for a court order, such as an injunction, usually does not.
Federal courts, and one important exception
The Seventh Amendment is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights the Supreme Court has not applied to the states. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Bombolis (1916) held that states are not bound by it. Most state constitutions, however, guarantee a civil jury of their own.
In federal court, the Court has held that a jury does not need twelve members; six is enough (Colgrove v. Battin, 1973). It has also applied the amendment to modern statutory claims that resemble old common-law ones, such as a lawsuit for damages over housing discrimination (Curtis v. Loether, 1974).
Agencies and juries
In SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), the Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in court. The agency could not impose those penalties itself in an in-house proceeding. The decision raised questions about how far other agencies can go in resolving disputes without a jury.