Tull v. United States

Background

A real estate developer was sued by the Federal Government for dumping fill into wetlands on Chincoteague Island, Virginia. The Government sought both injunctions to restore wetlands and civil fines, demanding as much as $22,890,000. Most of the land had already been sold, so injunctive relief was possible only for a small area. The developer’s demand for a jury trial was denied, and a judge found liability and imposed roughly $325,000 in penalties and some restoration orders.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial applies to both liability and the size of civil fines under the Clean Water Act. Looking to historical practice, the Court treated civil penalties as the kind of legal remedy that gives defendants a right to a jury on liability. But the Court also held that deciding the amount of a penalty is not one of the most fundamental parts of a jury trial, and that Congress may leave the discretionary calculation of fines to judges. The result: a jury must decide whether the developer violated the law, but the judge may set the dollar amount of any fine.

Real world impact

This decision means people and businesses sued for Clean Water Act violations will get juries to decide whether they violated the law, while judges will usually calculate fines. The ruling resolves a split among appeals courts and sends the case back for further proceedings consistent with this rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Stevens, agreed on liability but disagreed about penalties, arguing juries should also decide fine amounts and would have remanded for jury determination of both issues.