Tull v U.S. 481 U.S. 412, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1987)

 In Tull v. United States, a real estate developer, Tull, was accused of violating the Clean Water Act by disposing of fill materials from his development into some wetlands near the development property. When the Federal Government found out about these violations the attempted sued Tull for violations of the Clean Water Act. The government's claim was that Tull had dumped these fill materials in four separate locations. In the lawsuit the government asked for over $22 million in damages and for an injunction. At the time of filing most of the work had been completed and an injunction was deemed impractical.

Tull requested a jury trial and he was denied. After being denied the requested jury trial, the court ruled that Tull had to pay damages of $325,000, much less than the government requested. Tull appealed the decision on the basis of him being denied his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial for determining both his liability and the amount of the damages. The ruling was upheld in the Court of Appeals and then was taken by the Supreme Court.

Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that Tull's Seventh Amendment right was violated by having his request for a jury trial denied. The majority opinion held that a jury was needed to determine liability, but it was up to the judges in the cases to determine the amount of the penalty. Two justices concurred believing that the jury should be responsible for determining liability and penalties.

Because the Seventh Amendment does not apply to equitable rights, it had to be determined by the Court how this applied in a case where there were also legal rights at stake. The Court ruled that the legal claim in this manner could not be infringed upon by the equitable rights. The right for the jury to determine the financial damages was denied by the judges based on the fact that civil penalties are fixed by Congress when passing legislation. The judges ruled that since the penalties are fixed there is no need for a jury to be asked to make a ruling also.

 I find myself agreeing with the first part of the ruling in this case. I think the Seventh Amendment is pretty clear in stating that people deserve their right to a jury trial in civil cases. For the Court to have upheld the lower court's rulings here would have been to do exactly the opposite of that. I do believe that the Court should have also allowed a jury to determine that amount of damages given as well. To me it would seem to allow people to have their civil trials completely decided by a jury of their peers.