What is the actual text of the 7th Amendment?

Introduction: what this guide covers and a quick answer

This article begins with a clear answer and points readers to the primary text and interpretive resources site. It notes common search terms such as full first amendment and explains why a reader seeking exact amendment text should check the Bill of Rights transcription for the correct amendment.

The piece then gives the verbatim Seventh Amendment text, a line by line plain-language reading, practical steps for asserting a civil jury right in federal court, and links to the authoritative sources used for interpretation.

The actual text of the Seventh Amendment (verbatim) and a plain‑language reading

Verbatim transcription from the Bill of Rights

The following is the exact wording of the Seventh Amendment as transcribed in the Bill of Rights, a primary source for the amendment text National Archives Bill of Rights transcription.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Line-by-line plain-language paraphrase

“In Suits at common law” refers to civil actions that, at the time of the founding, were handled as actions at law rather than equitable proceedings. Modern readers can think of this phrase as delimiting the kinds of civil claims where the jury right traditionally applies.

“Where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars” is historical language describing a threshold that the founding text used. It does not mean courts apply a literal twenty-dollar rule today; interpretive summaries explain the clause as historical phrasing that helped define the scope of early jury practice Legal Information Institute summary.

“The right of trial by jury shall be preserved” states that when a claim falls within the Amendment’s scope, the jury’s role in deciding facts must be maintained and protected.

“No fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law” bars courts from re-deciding facts that a properly constituted jury has found, except in the limited ways that common-law practice allows. Authoritative annotations explain how that protection shapes modern judicial review of jury findings Constitution Annotated discussion and the GPO Constitution Annotated PDF GPO-CONAN PDF.

What the Amendment protects: jury fact‑finding and limits on judges

The jury’s fact‑finding role

The Amendment safeguards the jury as the primary finder of facts in qualifying federal civil cases. That core interpretation appears in leading legal summaries and annotations that trace the text to its purpose of preserving jury determinations Legal Information Institute summary.

Does the Seventh Amendment protect all civil suits?

In practice, the right protects fact-finding in those civil claims that fit the law-versus-equity distinction and related doctrines. Short examples can clarify the difference between claims where a jury typically decides facts and those where equitable remedies reduce or remove the jury role.

Limits on judicial re-examination

The clause that restricts re-examination prevents courts from substituting their own factual conclusions for those reached by a jury, except where established common-law procedures permit it. The Constitution Annotated describes how courts balance verdict finality with limited judicial relief Constitution Annotated discussion.

Common-law exceptions include narrowly defined post-trial procedures that allow courts to set aside or adjust verdicts in particular circumstances. Those procedures are constrained so that judicial oversight does not nullify the jury’s fact-finding role.

How the right is asserted in federal practice: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 38: demand for jury trial

Federal practice implements the Seventh Amendment through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 38 governs how and when a party must demand a jury trial, and the rule text and commentary explain timing and form requirements Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38. See the statutory note at US Code 28 USC App Rule 38.

To preserve a jury right, a party typically must file a timely written demand in the court record. The FRCP commentary describes who may demand a jury, how to record the demand, and how waiver can occur if a party fails to act within procedural deadlines. See Federal Judicial Center guidance on jury-trial demands.

Rule 39: how a jury verdict is conducted

Rule 39 addresses how cases proceed when a jury is properly demanded, including how the court decides whether a case should be tried by jury or by the court, and how verdicts are recorded. The rules translate the constitutional protection into everyday case management practices in federal court.

Scope and limits: when the Seventh Amendment applies and when it does not

Suits at common law versus equitable remedies

The Amendment traditionally applies to suits at law, while equitable remedies have historically proceeded without a jury. The Constitution Annotated explains this law-versus-equity line and how it affects a party’s right to a jury Constitution Annotated discussion.

In modern practice the distinction often turns on the remedy sought. If a plaintiff seeks monetary damages, a jury right is more likely to apply. If the remedy is injunctive or other equitable relief, a jury right may be limited.

Federal-only application and incorporation

The Seventh Amendment is primarily a federal protection and has not been broadly incorporated to apply against the states. The Legal Information Institute and Constitution Annotated note that states generally set their own civil jury rules through state constitutions and statutes Legal Information Institute summary.

That means readers should check both federal procedure and state law to determine whether a state-level case offers a similar jury right.

Historical background: English common law and why drafters included it

Roots in English jury practice

The Seventh Amendment reflects a long English common-law tradition that valued jury fact-finding as a check on judicial power. Historical summaries link the text to English practice and to the framers’ intent to preserve that role National Constitution Center overview.

At the founding, preserving the jury’s power to decide facts was a mechanism to limit judicial encroachment and protect litigants’ rights. The historical language in the amendment shows that lineage.

Founding-era debates and ratification

The Seventh Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, a date recorded in the National Archives transcription that serves as the primary text source National Archives Bill of Rights transcription.

While history informs interpretation, modern doctrine has evolved through later case law and procedural rules that shape how the Amendment operates in 21st century litigation.

Common misunderstandings and search confusion, including “full first amendment” queries

Mistaken expectations about amounts and modern relevance

Many searches treat the twenty-dollar phrase as a modern jurisdictional rule. That is a misconception. The historical dollar language helped define early practice but does not impose a literal modern limit on civil jury rights. Readers should consult the primary text and annotations rather than rely on the historical number alone Legal Information Institute summary.

Practical procedure, statutes, and court rules now govern whether a jury is available in a given case.

Confusing the First and Seventh Amendments

Search terms like full first amendment can lead readers to the First Amendment text, which addresses expressive and religious rights rather than civil jury trials. For the full text of any amendment, including the First, the Bill of Rights transcription is the authoritative source National Archives Bill of Rights transcription.

Readers searching for the jury-right content should focus on the Seventh Amendment materials and the procedural rules that implement it in federal court.

Practical steps: how a party typically demands a jury in federal civil court

Timing and form of a jury demand

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 requires a party to demand a jury trial in a specified form and within particular timeframes; failure to follow the rule can risk waiver of the right Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38.

Typical steps include checking the court’s local rules, filing a written demand in a timely manner, and confirming the demand is entered on the docket. Parties often note the demand on the civil cover sheet or in an initial responsive pleading when required.

Waiver risks and strategic notes

Failing to demand a jury in the time and manner Rule 38 prescribes can result in waiver. The FRCP commentary and the Constitution Annotated discuss how courts treat late or ambiguous demands and the practical consequences for litigants Constitution Annotated discussion.

Because local rules and judge preferences vary, parties should consult counsel or the court clerk for case-specific instructions.

How courts may re-examine jury facts: motions, standards, and limits

Judgment as a matter of law and new trials

Court tools that affect jury verdicts include motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for a new trial. These remedies are narrowly circumscribed so that they do not override the Seventh Amendment’s protection of jury fact-finding, as explained in doctrinal annotations Constitution Annotated discussion.

Judgment as a matter of law asks the court to find that no reasonable jury could have reached a given factual conclusion. Motions for new trial question the reliability of the verdict process, but the Amendment limits courts from substituting their own factual findings without following common-law rules.

Appellate review limits

On appeal, courts review legal claims and may review whether the trial court correctly applied standards for post-trial relief. Appellate oversight is constrained by the principle that jury findings deserve deference except in well-defined legal circumstances.

Because the balance between finality and review is fact- and procedure-specific, annotations and the FRCP remain the right places to check precise standards and procedures.

State courts and incorporation: does the Seventh Amendment bind states?

Incorporation doctrine overview

The Seventh Amendment has not been broadly incorporated against the states, so its federal wording operates chiefly in federal courts. The Constitution Annotated and legal summaries describe how incorporation doctrine affects the Amendment’s reach Constitution Annotated discussion.

State courts rely on their own constitutions and statutes for civil jury rights, and those state rules can vary from the federal approach.

How states handle civil jury rights

In many states, similar protections exist through state constitutional language or statutes, but the scope and procedures differ. Readers should check their state constitution and state procedural rules for precise guidance.

For federal cases, the Seventh Amendment and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remain the controlling instruments.

Practical examples and scenarios: how the Amendment matters in real cases

A simple civil damages case

Imagine a claim for monetary damages where the plaintiff seeks compensation for a breach of contract. If the claim fits the law-versus-equity framework for a damages remedy, the party may demand a jury under Rule 38 and a jury will typically decide disputed facts about liability and damages Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38.

That scenario shows how the Seventh Amendment’s protection of jury fact-finding is operationalized through the rules that instruct parties how to assert the right.

When equitable relief changes the analysis

By contrast, if a plaintiff seeks an injunction or another form of equitable relief, a jury right may be limited or absent because equitable remedies historically proceeded without a jury. The Constitution Annotated explains how remedy type changes the analysis Constitution Annotated discussion.

These vignettes illustrate the interaction among the amendment text, procedural rules, and the remedy sought.

Where to find the primary texts and authoritative annotations

National Archives and the Bill of Rights transcription

The National Archives Bill of Rights transcription provides the authoritative verbatim text for the Seventh Amendment and other amendments. When you need the exact wording, start with that transcription National Archives Bill of Rights transcription. Also see our Bill of Rights full-text guide Bill of Rights full-text guide.

Use that text as your primary source when citing amendment wording.

Cornell LII, Constitution Annotated, and FRCP texts

Cornell LII offers a concise legal summary useful for quick reference. The Constitution Annotated provides doctrinal detail and historical context. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supply the procedural mechanics to implement the Amendment in federal litigation Legal Information Institute summary.

Together these sources help readers move from the primary text to practical application in litigation.

Quick checklist for readers: questions to ask about a case

Does this dispute seek legal or equitable relief?

Checklist item 1, identify whether the remedy sought is legal (damages) or equitable (injunction), because that affects the jury right.

Checklist item 2, confirm whether a timely jury demand was filed under Rule 38 and entered on the docket. Checklist item 3, check local rules and the FRCP timing requirements. Checklist item 4, determine whether the case is in federal or state court and consult the appropriate sources. Checklist item 5, consult the Constitution Annotated or Cornell LII for interpretive nuance before relying on procedural steps Constitution Annotated discussion.

Conclusion: key takeaways and where to learn more

Three final points to remember

The Seventh Amendment’s verbatim text is preserved in the Bill of Rights transcription and protects jury fact-finding in qualifying federal civil suits National Archives Bill of Rights transcription.

Federal procedure, notably Rule 38 and related rules, provides the practical steps to assert that right. For doctrinal detail, the Constitution Annotated is a primary interpretive source Constitution Annotated discussion.

For case-specific questions, consult the primary texts and procedural rules, and seek counsel or local court guidance when needed.