Georgetown Center for the Constitution

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.

Related Citations

Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Originalism and Summary Judgment, 71 Ohio St. L.J. 919 (2010).

Responding to Thomas and arguing that just because evidentiary disputes were settled by juries at the time of founding does not mean that summary judgement is per se unconstitutional. Contra Suja A. Thomas, Why Summary Judgment Is Unconstitutional, 93 Va. L. Rev. 139 (2007) (arguing that summary judgement is unconstitutional because it allows judges to resolve cases where the sufficiency of a party’s evidence is in dispute, which was not permitted at the founding).

Suja A. Thomas, Why Summary Judgment Is Unconstitutional, 93 Va. L. Rev. 139 (2007).

Arguing that summary judgement is unconstitutional because it allows judges to resolve cases where the sufficiency of a party’s evidence is in dispute, which was not permitted at the founding and thus could not be the right meant to be “preserved.”

Stanton D. Krauss, The Original Understanding of the Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev. 407 (1999).

Arguing that Amar’s interpretation is wrong and contending that the Jury Trial Clause was meant to give Congress the authority to determine which cases should be triable to juries in federal court.

Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction 89 (1998).

Arguing that the “best” reading of the Jury Trial Clause is “probably” that federal courts must preserve the state-law jury right.