Civil Jury: the Supreme Court's Assault on the Seventh Amendment
نویسنده
چکیده
The decision of the Supreme Court in Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission 1 has seriously weakened the protection afforded by the seventh amendment to the United States Constitution.2 In Atlas the Court considered the constitudonality of the enforcement procedure established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).3 This was the first time the Court had considered a seventh amendment challenge to recent statutes in which Congress has expanded the role of administrative agencies in the enforcement of federal regulatory statutes. 4 The Court's conclusion that the OSHA procedure is not forbidden by the seventh amendment constitutes a first round of approval for this expansion. The OSHA procedure gives an administrative agency more power than has been given to agencies enforcing most older federal regulatory programs. Violations of the Act are not criminal offenses, and the only sanction is a civil money penalty. Civil money penalties have been used in other regulatory statutes,5 but OSHA pro-
منابع مشابه
Reconsidering in Re Technology Licensing Corporation and the Right to Jury Trial in Patent Invalidity Suits
“The right of jury trial in civil cases at common law is a basic and fundamental feature of our system of federal jurisprudence which is protected by the Seventh Amendment. A right so fundamental and sacred to the citizen . . . should be jealously guarded by the courts.”1 The rights of individuals in patent cases are no less deserving of the stubborn protections of the Seventh Amendment. Althou...
متن کاملMandamus as a Remedy for the Denial of Jury Trial
The Supreme Court has consistently stated that federal appellate courts may issue the writ of mandamus as an interlocutory remedy only under "extraordinary" circumstances," to correct a lower court order that is "not mere error but usurpation of power."2 The Court has explained that mandamus cannot serve as a substitute for normal appeal and should be available "only where appeal is a clearly i...
متن کاملRevisiting the Decision of Death in Hurst v. Florida.
The United States Supreme Court has considered the question of whether a judge or a jury must make the findings necessary to support imposition of the death penalty in several notable cases, including Spaziano v. Florida (1984), Hildwin v. Florida (1989), and Ring v. Arizona (2002). In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the subject in Hurst v. Florida Florida Statute § 921.141 allows the ju...
متن کاملPower Not Reason: Justice Marshall's Valedictory and the Fourth Amendment in the Supreme Court's 1990 Term
In its 1990 Term, the United States Supreme Court heard five cases involving the Fourth Amendment. In this article, Professor Bruce Green analyzes these five search-and-seizure decisions in light of Justice Marshall's criticism that '[Plower, not reason, is the new currency of this Court's decision-making. " He examines the various considerations the Court advances in its Fourth Amendment analy...
متن کاملShould Juries Hear Complex Patent Cases?
A debate has arisen within the legal community over the existence and constitutionality of a so-called “complexity exception” to the Seventh Amendment. This exception would give a judge the discretion to deny a jury trial in a civil case if he or she feels that the issue is too complex for a jury to decide properly. This iBrief discusses the constitutionality of the complexity exception and the...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2017