Tull v. United States
481 U.S. 412 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial to determine liability in actions brought by the government seeking civil penalties. However, this right does not extend to the assessment of the amount of the civil penalty, which may be determined by the court.
Facts:
- Petitioner Tull, a real estate developer, discharged dredged or fill material into areas on the island of Chincoteague, Virginia.
- The areas where Tull dumped the fill included Ocean Breeze Mobile Homes Sites, Mire Pond Properties, and Eel Creek.
- The government determined these areas were 'navigable waters,' including adjacent wetlands, as defined by the Clean Water Act.
- Tull did not obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers before discharging the fill material.
- By the time the government filed its lawsuit, Tull had sold most of the properties at issue to third parties, making injunctive relief largely impractical.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Government sued Tull in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act.
- Tull filed a timely demand for a jury trial.
- The District Court denied Tull's request for a jury trial.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found Tull liable for violations of the Act and imposed $325,000 in civil penalties and granted limited injunctive relief.
- Tull, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, rejecting Tull's Seventh Amendment claim.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Seventh Amendment guarantee a right to a jury trial on both liability and the amount of the penalty in an action by the Federal Government seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, as to liability; No, as to the amount of the penalty. The Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial on the question of liability for civil penalties but not on the subsequent assessment of the amount of those penalties. To determine if a statutory action requires a jury trial, the Court employs a two-part test: it compares the action to 18th-century English common law actions and examines the nature of the remedy sought. A suit for civil penalties is analogous to a common law action in debt. More importantly, the remedy itself is legal, not equitable, because civil penalties are a form of punishment intended for retribution and deterrence, which were remedies administered by courts of law. The right to a jury cannot be abridged by characterizing the legal claim for penalties as 'incidental' to the equitable claim for an injunction. However, the assessment of the penalty amount is not a 'fundamental element' of the right to a jury trial. Since Congress can fix the amount of a penalty by statute, it can delegate the highly discretionary calculation of that penalty to a judge.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Scalia
Yes. The right to a trial by jury on whether a civil penalty is assessable also includes the right to have the jury determine the amount of that penalty. There is no historical precedent for a form of civil adjudication where a jury determines liability but a court assesses the monetary penalty. This is analogous to punitive damages, which are assessed by a jury. Having chosen to proceed with a civil action, which is analogous to a common-law action for debt, the Government must accept all its features. This includes having a jury of private citizens determine not only liability but also the amount of the award.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the central role of the remedy's nature in Seventh Amendment analysis, affirming that even in modern regulatory schemes, a punitive monetary penalty is a legal remedy requiring a jury for the liability phase. The case creates a bifurcated system for civil penalty cases: liability is a question of fact for the jury, while the amount of the penalty is determined by the judge. This approach provides defendants with constitutional protection against government overreach on liability findings but gives judges, rather than juries, control over the often complex and policy-laden calculation of penalties, potentially leading to more predictable penalty outcomes in environmental and other regulatory enforcement actions.
Unlock the full brief for Tull v. United States