Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Tull v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSeventh AmendmentJury TrialCivil PenaltiesClean Water ActSeventh Amendmentjury trialcivil penalties

Facts

The Government sued petitioner Tull, a real estate developer, alleging that he dumped fill on wetlands and a manmade waterway on property in Chincoteague, Virginia without a permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act. The Government sought both injunctive relief and civil penalties, demanding the statutory maximum of $22,890,000, though injunctive relief was largely impractical because most of the land had already been sold to third parties. Tull timely demanded a jury trial, but the District Court denied the request and conducted a 15-day bench trial. The court found violations on all properties, imposed $325,000 in penalties, and granted limited injunctive relief.

Issue

Does the Seventh Amendment guarantee a defendant a right to a jury trial in a federal government action seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act? If so, does that right extend both to determining liability and to fixing the amount of the civil penalty?

Rule

To determine whether the Seventh Amendment applies to a statutory action, a court examines both the nature of the action by comparing it to 18th-century actions in English law and the nature of the remedy sought, with the character of the remedy being more important. A claim seeking civil penalties is legal in nature and triggers a jury-trial right on liability, but Congress may assign the determination of the amount of the civil penalty to the trial judge because penalty assessment is not an essential element of the common-law jury trial right.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The United States files suit in federal district court in Ohio against Dana Mercer, owner of Lakefront Aggregate, alleging repeated violations of a federal environmental statute. The statute authorizes an injunction and a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day, and the complaint seeks both forms of relief. Mercer demands a jury trial on liability and on the amount of any penalty.

How should the court rule on Mercer’s jury demand?

Explanation. When the Government seeks statutory civil penalties in federal court, the Seventh Amendment applies if the action is analogous to an action at law and the remedy is legal in nature. Civil penalties are legal because they punish and deter, not merely restore the status quo. But the amount of the civil penalty may be assigned to the judge because penalty assessment is not a fundamental element of the common-law jury right preserved by the Seventh Amendment.