Legal Sidebari

The Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Cases Part 1:
Introduction and Historical Background
December 22, 2022
This Legal Sidebar is the first in a five-part series that discusses a unique feature of the American legal
system—the constitutional right to a jury trial in federal civil cases at law. During the Constitution’s
ratification, the Anti-Federalist, known by the pseudonym the “Federal Farmer,” argued that the
Constitution should expressly provide a right to civil jury trials because “the well born,” who would
comprise the judiciary, “are generally disposed, and very naturally too, to favour those of their own
description.” Included as part of the Bill of Rights, the right to civil jury trials, according to a 2020 study,
is seen by many judges, as well as plaintiff and defense attorneys, as providing a fairer way to resolve
lawsuits than bench trials or arbitration. The use of jury trials to resolve civil cases, however, decreased
from 5.5% in 1962 to less than 1% in 2013, with some attributing this to damage caps and mandatory
binding arbitration. Members of Congress interested in civil litigation or federal court operations may find
the constitutional right to jury trials in civil cases of interest. (For additional background on this topic and
citations to relevant sources, see the Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and
Interpretation.)
The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial in civil cases seeking monetary damages in federal court
and limits the circumstances under which courts may overturn a jury’s findings of fact. The Seventh
Amendment provides as follows: “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.”
Although the right to a jury trial in civil cases at law is rooted in English common law and was important
during the colonial era, it initially was omitted from the Constitution. The First Congress, however,
ultimately adopted the right as one of the Bill of Rights, which became effective in 1791. Since then, the
Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “Suits at common law” under the Seventh Amendment as
preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases as it “existed under the English common law when the
amendment was adopted.” This means that the Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a trial by jury in
cases under admiralty and maritime law and in other proceedings historically tried by a court instead of a
jury, nor does it reach statutory proceedings unknown to the common law concerning the enforcement of
statutory “public rights” created by Congress.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10883
CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
While the Seventh Amendment traces its roots to English common law, some historians trace the origin of
the English jury as far back as Ancient Greece. Sir William Blackstone, in his influential treatise on
English common law titled Commentaries on the Laws of England, called the right “the glory of the
English law” and necessary for “[t]he impartial administration of justice,” which, if “entirely entrusted to
the magistracy, a select body of men,” would be subject “frequently [to] an involuntary bias towards those
of their own rank and dignity.”
From England, the colonists brought the right to a jury trial across the Atlantic. The civil jury played an
important role during the colonial era. The colonies stoutly resisted the King of England’s efforts to
diminish this right, and the Declaration of Independence identified the denial of “the benefits of trial by
jury” as one of the grievances that led to the American Revolution. Despite this right’s prominence in
Colonial America, however, a right to a civil jury trial was not included in the original draft of the
Constitution.
Records of the Philadelphia Convention show that the delegates twice raised the issue of whether the
Constitution should include a right to a jury trial. On September 12, 1787, toward the end of the
Convention, Hugh Williamson of North Carolina “observed to the House that no provision was yet made
for juries in Civil cases and suggested the necessity of it.” Some delegates expressed support for such a
provision but observed that the diversity of state courts’ practices in civil trials made it impossible to draft
a suitable provision. This latter concern appears to have served as the basis for defeating a motion,
brought by another delegate on September 15, 1787, to insert a clause in Article III, § 2, to guarantee
that “a trial by jury shall be preserved as usual in civil cases.”
After the Convention, many opponents of the Constitution’s ratification cited the omission of a right to a
jury trial with such “urgency and zeal” that they almost prevented the states from ratifying the
Constitution. Some opponents of the Constitution claimed that the absence of a provision requiring civil
jury trials in a Constitution that mandated jury trials in criminal cases implied that the use of a jury was
abolished in civil cases. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton refuted this assertion, expressing
the view that the Constitution’s silence on civil jury trials merely meant “that the institution [would]
remain precisely in the same situation in which it is placed by the State constitutions.”
In ratifying the Constitution, several states urged Congress to provide a right to a jury in civil cases as one
of the amendments. The right was included in the list of amendments James Madison proposed to the
First Congress, which adopted the right as one of the Bill of Rights. It does not appear that the proposed
amendment’s text or meaning was debated during its passage. The Seventh Amendment became effective
as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
This Legal Sidebar series covers the right to a jury trial in civil cases at law. Part 2 discusses the meaning
of the Seventh Amendment qualifying language “Suits at common law” and the identification of civil
cases to which the right applies. Parts 3 and 4 examine the distinction between legal and equitable claims,
the treatment of cases that combine elements of both, and the roles of the judge and jury in civil cases.
Part 5 concludes with a discussion of the bar on judges from reexamining a jury’s factual findings.

Author Information

Wen W. Shen

Legislative Attorney

---

Congressional Research Service
3


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10883 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---