The Seventh Amendment: Does It Apply to the 21st Century?

“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.”

The Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to a jury trial in federal civil cases. As Carrington (1990) explains, the Seventh Amendment was created as a check on the power of the federal judicial system and was intended to preserve citizen participation in civil justice. However, many scholars question whether the Seventh Amendment still fits our current legal institutions. Society has changed substantially since the amendment was adopted. For example, the $20 requirement outlined in the 1791 amendment is equivalent to approximately $689 in 2025, which illustrates how different the modern legal landscape has become. The interpretation of the Seventh Amendment has therefore been debated, particularly whether courts should rely on the 1791 understanding or adopt a more modern approach.

Redish (1976) argues that the Constitution is best interpreted in its historical context. Similarly, Carrington (1990)suggests that the Seventh Amendment does not always fit easily into today’s society. At the same time, courts have used forms of rational decision-making to interpret the Seventh Amendment in the modern world. In theory, this approach allows the amendment to apply to more cases than a strictly historical approach might. However, Redish, Carrington, and other scholars identify several concerns about civil jury trials that warrant consideration. Why might interpreting the Seventh Amendment in the modern world create challenges? To answer this, we must again consider how drastically society has changed and how complex civil cases may not always be well-suited for jury trials. Let’s discuss a few concerns:

Civil jury cases are taking longer and costing more today. The number of civil litigation cases in 2025 is dramatically greater than in 1791, when the amendment was first enacted. The increase in case volume alone is concerning, but modern cases have also become more complex. Additionally, jury trials often take longer than cases decided by judges, known as bench trials. Jury trials involve jury selection and deliberation, which are not required in bench trials. This extra time, along with the cost of paying jurors, can make jury trials more expensive.

There is also concern that jurors in civil cases may not always have the specialized knowledge needed to make accurate legal decisions. Jurors act as “fact finders,” so it is important that they understand the law and apply it objectively. While jurors often have good intentions, they are not guaranteed to apply the law correctly, especially in complex 21st-century cases. For example, how much do you know about shareholder actions, copyright infringement, or what makes a business practice legally unethical? Would you be able to make accurate legal judgments in all of these cases? The Re-Examination Clause of the Seventh Amendment generally prevents courts from re-examining or overturning the facts determined by a jury in a civil case.

Scholars have also argued that civil jury cases can raise fairness concerns. The way evidence is presented may differ between jury and bench trials. Evidence presented to a jury must be carefully considered to ensure it does not unfairly influence jurors. This can lead to certain evidence being excluded because it may be too emotional or prejudicial for jurors, a concern that is often less pronounced in bench trials. Jury trials can also be more theatrical than bench trials. Lawyers presenting evidence to a jury may be more animated than when presenting to a judge. Some scholars argue that this dynamic may negatively affect the values of the legal system and the fairness of verdicts.

The Seventh Amendment exists to protect citizens’ rights and increase public participation in the legal system. The amendment has important benefits and is clearly well-intentioned. However, there are also several downsides to jury trials in federal civil cases, as outlined above. These concerns may help explain the decline in their use. As Duke Law Schoolexplains, civil trials have been declining over the last twenty-five years, and only 0.7% of federal civil cases are resolved by jury trial. The debate remains over whether the Seventh Amendment is still fully relevant to modern civil law and whether plaintiffs or defendants may sometimes be better served by other means of resolving their cases.