The Seventh Amendment jury trial rights guarantee that in federal civil cases seeking more than twenty dollars in money damages, either party can insist that a jury, not a judge, decides the facts. The amendment also blocks federal courts from re-examining what a jury has found, except through narrow procedures inherited from common law. Getting a jury is not automatic, though: you have to ask for one on time, your case has to be the right kind, and several large categories of disputes fall outside the guarantee entirely.
What Kinds of Cases Qualify
The amendment reaches “suits at common law,” which in modern practice means civil cases seeking money damages. Breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and similar claims for financial compensation all qualify. The dividing line is between legal claims, which seek money, and equitable claims, which seek court orders like injunctions or specific performance. Ask a judge to make someone pay, and a jury right attaches. Ask a judge to make someone stop, and it does not.
Many lawsuits mix both. In Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, the Supreme Court held that when a case blends legal and equitable elements, courts look primarily at the remedy the plaintiff is after. If the core request is compensatory damages, the jury right applies to the whole suit.1Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Chauffeurs Local 391 v. Terry That remedy-focused test lets the amendment cover modern statutory claims the framers never imagined, as long as the plaintiff is ultimately chasing money.
How to Demand a Jury
You have to ask, and you have to ask quickly. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a party who wants a jury must file a written demand no later than 14 days after the last pleading on the issue is served.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38 – Right to a Jury Trial; Demand The demand can be tucked into a pleading or filed on its own, but the deadline is firm. Miss it and you waive the right for good. Either side can make the demand, and once filed properly, the other party cannot undo it unilaterally.
What a Federal Civil Jury Looks Like
A federal civil jury seats at least 6 and no more than 12 members, and the default rule requires a unanimous verdict from at least 6 jurors.3Legal Information Institute. Rule 48 – Number of Jurors; Verdict; Polling That is smaller than the 12-person criminal jury most people picture. Both sides can agree to relax unanimity, but courts discourage stipulating to fewer than six jurors except in unusual situations, like a long trial where illness thins the panel.
The Twenty-Dollar Number Is Misleading
The amendment’s text sets the jury-trial threshold at twenty dollars, and that figure has never been amended.4Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Seventh Amendment Technically, any federal civil case worth more than that triggers the constitutional right.
The real gatekeeper is federal jurisdiction. A suit between citizens of different states must involve more than $75,000 to land in federal court under the diversity jurisdiction statute.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1332 – Diversity of Citizenship; Amount in Controversy; Costs Cases involving a federal statute or the federal government can enter regardless of the dollar amount, but most private disputes have to clear the $75,000 bar first. The twenty-dollar constitutional floor is still on the books; the practical minimum is orders of magnitude higher.
When the Jury Right Does Not Apply
Several large categories of cases fall outside the amendment’s reach even when a lot of money is at stake.
- State courts. The Seventh Amendment does not apply to state courts at all. In Walker v. Sauvinet, the Supreme Court held that the amendment “relates only to trials in the courts of the United States” and left states free to run their own trials as they see fit. That holding has never been overturned. Most states guarantee civil jury trials under their own constitutions, but the scope and procedures vary, so check the specific state’s rules.6Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 907Cornell Law Institute. U.S. Constitution Seventh Amendment
- Lawsuits against the federal government. Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2402, most claims against the United States, including personal injury suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act, are tried by a judge without a jury. Tax refund suits are the notable exception, where either party can request a jury.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 2402 – Jury Trial in Actions Against United States
- Equitable claims. Cases seeking injunctions, specific performance, or other non-monetary relief are decided by a judge.
- Bankruptcy proceedings. Matters arising under the Bankruptcy Code are generally resolved without a jury, though the boundaries shift depending on whether the claim would have existed outside bankruptcy.
- Arbitration agreements. Mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts, consumer agreements, and other commercial deals route disputes away from courts entirely. Agreeing to arbitrate waives the jury right, and federal courts consistently enforce those waivers.
What a Judge Can Still Do to a Verdict
Even after a jury rules, federal judges retain a few carefully limited tools. The re-examination clause of the amendment is the reason each of these tools is bounded rather than open-ended: it forbids any federal court from second-guessing a jury’s factual findings except through procedures rooted in common law.4Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Seventh Amendment
Judgment as a Matter of Law
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, a judge can overturn a verdict only if no reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion on the evidence presented. The judge has to view every fact in the light most favorable to the winning side and can step in only when the evidence so overwhelmingly favors the loser that the verdict has no legal basis.9Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50 – Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial Courts invoke it sparingly.
New Trial Motions
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 lets a judge order a new trial rather than throw the verdict out. Traditional grounds include a verdict against the clear weight of the evidence, prejudicial errors during trial, or newly discovered evidence.10Legal Information Institute. Rule 59 – New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment A judge can even order one on grounds neither party raised, as long as both sides get notice and a chance to be heard. Because this sends the case back to another jury rather than having the judge decide the facts alone, it fits within the amendment’s framework.
Remittitur and Additur
When a jury awards damages that seem wildly out of proportion, a federal judge can use remittitur: offer the winning plaintiff a choice between accepting a reduced award or going through a new trial. The Supreme Court approved this practice in Dimick v. Schiedt, reasoning that the reduced amount was still “found” by the jury because it was included within the larger verdict.11Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 Additur, the reverse move, is unconstitutional. In the same case, the Court held that a federal judge cannot increase an inadequate award, because that would add something the jury never actually found.
Administrative Agencies After SEC v. Jarkesy
For decades, federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission resolved enforcement cases through internal proceedings, with agency judges rather than juries deciding outcomes. In 2024, that practice hit a wall. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the defendant has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in federal court.12Supreme Court of the United States. SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859
The Court rejected the argument that a “public rights” exception let Congress route these cases to administrative tribunals. The majority wrote that Congress cannot “conjure away the Seventh Amendment by mandating that traditional legal claims” go to an agency proceeding instead of a courtroom. The full reach is still being worked out, but at minimum, agencies cannot seek fraud penalties through in-house proceedings when the claims resemble traditional lawsuits for money damages. The decision may reshape how other federal agencies pursue civil penalties going forward.