U.S. Constitution · Amendment VII · ratified 1791-12-15

Civil Jury Trials

Create a free account or sign in to follow Amendment VII and get alerts.

Alerts when a new grade, SI Solution or Think Tank idea cites Amend. VII.

Also known as: Civil Jury Trial Clause · Reexamination Clause

The Seventh Amendment preserves jury trial in federal suits at common law over twenty dollars and limits re-examination of jury-found facts to common-law rules.

Live in the VFA record

Cited in 19 grades this month.

30 public items cite this provision · 19 in October 2026 (last month: 1)

Week of 2026-08-03: 0Week of 2026-08-10: 0Week of 2026-08-17: 0Week of 2026-08-24: 0Week of 2026-08-31: 1Week of 2026-09-07: 0Week of 2026-09-14: 0Week of 2026-09-21: 0Week of 2026-09-28: 1Week of 2026-10-05: 17Week of 2026-10-12: 2Week of 2026-10-19: 0

Citations per week, last 12 weeks

The text

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.

National Archives transcription (public domain; original spelling and capitalization). archives.gov

SI explainer

What it means

The Seventh Amendment says that in suits at common law where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. It says that 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. The provision sets two linked rules. The first preserves a jury trial where the text applies. The second limits how a federal court may revisit a factual finding made by a jury. Both rules use the common-law terms stated in the text. The Supreme Court has applied these words to particular federal claims. It has held that the Seventh Amendment entitles parties to a jury trial in an action for damages under the fair housing provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. It has also held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial, and the public rights exception does not permit in-house adjudication.

Original meaning

The words preserved a right to trial by jury in suits at common law where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars, and limited re-examination of a fact tried by a jury to the rules of the common law. Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 83 that supporters and opponents of the proposed Constitution agreed on the value of trial by jury, while differing in emphasis. The official summary states that the provision was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
  • “The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 83 (1788-05-28)

How the Supreme Court has read it

  1. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974)

    The Court held that the Seventh Amendment entitles parties to a jury trial in an action for damages under the fair housing provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

  2. SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024)

    The Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial, and the public rights exception does not permit in-house adjudication.

Two schools of interpretation

Originalist / textualist reading

Originalists and textualists read the provision from its text and its original public meaning. In this view, the official summary states that the preserved right turns on the meaning of suits at common law, the twenty-dollar amount stated in the text, and re-examination according to the rules of the common law. Courts applying this method look to that historical meaning to decide which federal civil actions carry the preserved jury right and which re-examination methods are permitted.

Living-constitutionalist reading

Living constitutionalists and pragmatists read the provision by its continuing purpose as well as its words. In this view, the official summary states that the jury safeguard should keep its practical force as Congress creates new civil claims for money penalties and damages, and courts should read the preserved jury right and the limit on re-examination to protect the jury function in present-day federal proceedings. This approach treats the two decisions in the case record as applications of that continuing purpose to modern statutes.

Open questions

How the preserved jury right applies to other modern federal statutory claims beyond the two decisions described above, and the scope of any public-rights distinction left open by those decisions.

SI-generated explainer · passed automated checks (Constitution citation, every quotation verified word for word against its public-domain source, every case from a verified case record, independent SI critic) · not individually reviewed by a person · published 2026-10-18 · methodology · Report an error: hello@valuesforamerica.com

Cited in the VFA record

“Where this provision is cited”

grades (19)

roll-call votes (9)

Roll-call votes are listed when the measure voted on has a current Constitution Index grade citing this provision. Counts include only published items.

Cite this page

Values for America Constitution Explorer, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution (text: National Archives transcription, public domain), Amendment VII, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution/amendment-7

Data: this provision as JSON.