A Limitation on Congress: "In Suits at common law"

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The Supreme Court has interpreted many parts of the Constitution to limit the power of Congress including, for example, Articles I, II, and III and the First Amendment. This Symposium Article argues that another part of the Constitution, the Seventh Amendment, has not been viewed similarly by the Court, and that this view is incorrect. The Article assumes that the Court has properly adopted the English common law in 1791 as the law governing the Seventh Amendment. Using this law, in decisions on whether a jury trial right exists for a cause of action created by Congress, the Court has analyzed both whether the cause of action is sufficiently analogous to an English common law cause of action and whether the relief sought is of the type decided by juries in English common law courts. This two-prong examination has occurred despite the fact that whether a jury heard a claim in England in 1791 was based, with very few exceptions, only on the second prong - the relief sought, with damages being heard by juries. Also, the Court has been deferential to congressional decisions to place certain damages decisions in non-Article III forums, without a jury trial right, including in administrative agencies and bankruptcy courts. This Article argues that, at least in part because of this deferential way in which the Court has viewed Congress, the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right has been improperly curtailed. The inquiry as to whether a jury trial right exists under the Seventh Amendment should be based only on the relief sought, and a jury trial right exists for congressionally-created causes of action with damages remedies, including ones that Congress has relegated to administrative agencies and bankruptcy courts.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1071
Number of pages38
JournalOhio State Law Journal
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

common law
amendment
damages
cause
bankruptcy
constitution
Law
remedies
Supreme Court
examination

Keywords

  • Seventh Amendment
  • jury trial
  • in suits at common law
  • Congress
  • Administrative Agency
  • Bankruptcy Court
  • common law
  • originalism

Cite this

A Limitation on Congress : "In Suits at common law". / Thomas, Suja A.

In: Ohio State Law Journal, 2010, p. 1071.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{76c8d8f706c246329baf2a228f91a8bd,
title = "A Limitation on Congress: {"}In Suits at common law{"}",
abstract = "The Supreme Court has interpreted many parts of the Constitution to limit the power of Congress including, for example, Articles I, II, and III and the First Amendment. This Symposium Article argues that another part of the Constitution, the Seventh Amendment, has not been viewed similarly by the Court, and that this view is incorrect. The Article assumes that the Court has properly adopted the English common law in 1791 as the law governing the Seventh Amendment. Using this law, in decisions on whether a jury trial right exists for a cause of action created by Congress, the Court has analyzed both whether the cause of action is sufficiently analogous to an English common law cause of action and whether the relief sought is of the type decided by juries in English common law courts. This two-prong examination has occurred despite the fact that whether a jury heard a claim in England in 1791 was based, with very few exceptions, only on the second prong - the relief sought, with damages being heard by juries. Also, the Court has been deferential to congressional decisions to place certain damages decisions in non-Article III forums, without a jury trial right, including in administrative agencies and bankruptcy courts. This Article argues that, at least in part because of this deferential way in which the Court has viewed Congress, the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right has been improperly curtailed. The inquiry as to whether a jury trial right exists under the Seventh Amendment should be based only on the relief sought, and a jury trial right exists for congressionally-created causes of action with damages remedies, including ones that Congress has relegated to administrative agencies and bankruptcy courts.",
keywords = "Seventh Amendment, jury trial, in suits at common law, Congress, Administrative Agency, Bankruptcy Court, common law, originalism",
author = "Thomas, {Suja A}",
year = "2010",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1071",
journal = "Ohio State Law Journal",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Limitation on Congress

T2 - "In Suits at common law"

AU - Thomas, Suja A

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - The Supreme Court has interpreted many parts of the Constitution to limit the power of Congress including, for example, Articles I, II, and III and the First Amendment. This Symposium Article argues that another part of the Constitution, the Seventh Amendment, has not been viewed similarly by the Court, and that this view is incorrect. The Article assumes that the Court has properly adopted the English common law in 1791 as the law governing the Seventh Amendment. Using this law, in decisions on whether a jury trial right exists for a cause of action created by Congress, the Court has analyzed both whether the cause of action is sufficiently analogous to an English common law cause of action and whether the relief sought is of the type decided by juries in English common law courts. This two-prong examination has occurred despite the fact that whether a jury heard a claim in England in 1791 was based, with very few exceptions, only on the second prong - the relief sought, with damages being heard by juries. Also, the Court has been deferential to congressional decisions to place certain damages decisions in non-Article III forums, without a jury trial right, including in administrative agencies and bankruptcy courts. This Article argues that, at least in part because of this deferential way in which the Court has viewed Congress, the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right has been improperly curtailed. The inquiry as to whether a jury trial right exists under the Seventh Amendment should be based only on the relief sought, and a jury trial right exists for congressionally-created causes of action with damages remedies, including ones that Congress has relegated to administrative agencies and bankruptcy courts.

AB - The Supreme Court has interpreted many parts of the Constitution to limit the power of Congress including, for example, Articles I, II, and III and the First Amendment. This Symposium Article argues that another part of the Constitution, the Seventh Amendment, has not been viewed similarly by the Court, and that this view is incorrect. The Article assumes that the Court has properly adopted the English common law in 1791 as the law governing the Seventh Amendment. Using this law, in decisions on whether a jury trial right exists for a cause of action created by Congress, the Court has analyzed both whether the cause of action is sufficiently analogous to an English common law cause of action and whether the relief sought is of the type decided by juries in English common law courts. This two-prong examination has occurred despite the fact that whether a jury heard a claim in England in 1791 was based, with very few exceptions, only on the second prong - the relief sought, with damages being heard by juries. Also, the Court has been deferential to congressional decisions to place certain damages decisions in non-Article III forums, without a jury trial right, including in administrative agencies and bankruptcy courts. This Article argues that, at least in part because of this deferential way in which the Court has viewed Congress, the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right has been improperly curtailed. The inquiry as to whether a jury trial right exists under the Seventh Amendment should be based only on the relief sought, and a jury trial right exists for congressionally-created causes of action with damages remedies, including ones that Congress has relegated to administrative agencies and bankruptcy courts.

KW - Seventh Amendment

KW - jury trial

KW - in suits at common law

KW - Congress

KW - Administrative Agency

KW - Bankruptcy Court

KW - common law

KW - originalism

M3 - Article

SP - 1071

JO - Ohio State Law Journal

JF - Ohio State Law Journal

ER -