Thomas v. Humboldt Cty.
Headline: A challenge over whether the Seventh Amendment applies to state civil cases is denied review, leaving varied state jury protections intact while a Justice urges the Court to revisit the old ruling.
Holding: The petition for certiorari was denied; Justice Gorsuch agreed with denial but argued the Seventh Amendment likely applies to the States and Bombolis should be reconsidered.
- Maintains differing jury rights between federal and many state cases for now.
- Leaves people facing state civil enforcement without guaranteed jury trials in some places.
- Signals potential future change if the Court reconsiders Bombolis and applies the Seventh Amendment to states.
Summary
Background
A group led by Corinne Morgan Thomas sued Humboldt County, California, asking the Court to reconsider an old decision that said the Seventh Amendment’s civil jury right does not bind the States. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, issuing a denial of review. Justice Gorsuch wrote a separate statement explaining why he agreed the Court should not hear the case now but why the underlying issue deserves attention.
Reasoning
Justice Gorsuch explained the central question in everyday terms: should the right to a jury trial in civil cases be enforceable against state and local governments? He said the old decision (Bombolis) looks like a relic because later rulings have applied many Bill of Rights protections to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. He emphasized historical evidence that civil juries were widely respected at the founding and in 1868. But he also noted “vehicle” problems—procedural issues in this case—that make it unlikely the Court could decide the question now, so he joined the denial of review while urging reconsideration in a better case.
Real world impact
Because the Court denied review, the old rule stays in place for now. That means people facing civil enforcement by state or local agencies may continue to have different jury protections depending on their State. Justice Gorsuch warned this creates a two-tiered system and said the Court should confront that inequality in a future case that cleanly presents the issue.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?