The $20 threshold written into the Seventh Amendment in 1791 would be worth roughly $500 today, but the number has never been adjusted for inflation. That means technically you could demand a jury trial over a $21 parking ticket dispute, though federal courts now require at least $75,000 in controversy to hear a case at all.
The Constitution guarantees jury trials in civil cases worth more than $20, a provision that seemed reasonable when $20 could buy you a month's rent. Some scholars argue the framers expected inflation to make the threshold irrelevant over time, essentially phasing out jury trials for small claims. Instead, modern federal law simply ignores the constitutional number and sets its own higher bar. The original threshold survives as a constitutional quirk—technically still on the books, functionally obsolete for two centuries.
The $20 threshold is a constitutional constraint courts must honor, even when it produces absurd results. It illustrates an enduring tension: written law can become divorced from reality without an explicit amendment process. Understanding the threshold shows why we can't just ignore constitutional text, even when it becomes outdated.
People think jury trials are guaranteed for any dispute. Actually, federal courts now use a $75,000 minimum based on statute, not the $20 in the Seventh Amendment. The constitutional number survives on paper, but federal courts have effectively rewritten it through legislation and judicial practice.
The $20 threshold is a constitutional constraint courts must honor, even when it produces absurd results. It illustrates an enduring tension: written law can become divorced from reality without an explicit amendment process. Understanding the threshold shows why we can't just ignore constitutional text, even when it becomes outdated.
People think jury trials are guaranteed for any dispute. Actually, federal courts now use a $75,000 minimum based on statute, not the $20 in the Seventh Amendment. The constitutional number survives on paper, but federal courts have effectively rewritten it through legislation and judicial practice.