See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 442-443 (1975) (REHNQUIST, J., concurring). The fact that the legislature could elect to fix the amount of penalty has nothing to do with whether, if it chooses not to do so, that element comes within the jury-trial guarantee. The District Court concluded that petitioner had illegally filled in wetland areas on all properties in question, but drastically reduced the amount of civil penalties sought by the Government. The assessment of a civil penalty is not one of the "most fundamental elements." The Court holds that suits for civil penalties are analogous to actions in debt within the jurisdiction of English courts of law. The Government, in fact, concedes that public *424 nuisance cases brought in equity sought injunctive relief, not monetary penalties. Subsection (b) authorizes relief in the form of temporary or permanent injunctions. [1] Additionally, the Government alleged that petitioner's dumping of fill in Fowling Gut Extended violated another statute, the Rivers and Harbors Act, which prohibits the placement of fill in navigable waters without the authorization of the Secretary of the Army. Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149, 157, 93 S.Ct. Having chosen to proceed in civil fashion, with the advantages which that mode entails, it seems to me the Government must take the bitter with the sweet. . The legislative history of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act shows, however, that Congress intended that trial judges perform the highly discretionary calculations necessary to award civil penalties after liability is found. The Court next holds that a civil penalty was a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law. The Government later amended the complaint to allege that petitioner also placed fill in a manmade waterway, named Fowling Gut Extended, on the Ocean Breeze property.[1]. 123 Cong. [2] The Government's complaint alleged violations involving over 1 million square feet of land.

Pp.

The question for decision is whether the Seventh Amendment guaranteed petitioner a right to a jury trial on both liability and amount of penalty in an action instituted by the Federal Government seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act, 62 Stat.

of Oral Arg. 19, 101 Eng.Rep. Justice SCALIA, with whom Justice STEVENS joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Our search is for a single historical analog, taking into consideration the nature of the cause of action and the remedy as two important factors.

894, 899, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962). Petitioner's timely demand for a trial by jury was denied by the District Court. Author: Since, as the Court correctly reasons, the proper analogue to a civil-fine action is the common-law action for debt, the Government need only prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence; but must, as in any action for debt, accept the amount of award determined not by its own officials but by 12 private citizens.

We do not find this distinction to be significant. William Joseph Brennan Jr. *413 Richard R. Nageotte argued the cause for petitioner.

The Clean Water Act prohibits discharging, without a permit, dredged or fill material into "navigable waters," including the wetlands adjacent to the waters.

Restitution is limited to "restoring the status quo and ordering the return of that which rightfully belongs to the purchaser or tenant." App. Thus, the remedy of civil penalties is similar to the remedy of punitive damages, another legal remedy that is not a fixed fine. Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 402 (1946). "Injunctive relief [for enjoining a public nuisance at the request of the Government] is traditionally given by equity upon a showing of [peril to health and safety]."

Petitioner's timely demand for a trial by jury was denied by the District Court. 2362, 2384-2385, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975) (REHNQUIST, J., concurring). An action for disgorgement of improper profits is, however, a poor analogy. Given this statutory silence, we must answer the constitutional question presented. Get Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. When Congress enacted the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act, it endorsed the EPA's then-existing penalty calculation policy. Instead, the language "defines the kind of cases for which jury trial is preserved, namely 'suits at common law.' 44. The court expressly declined to follow the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. J.B. Williams Co., 498 F.2d 414 (1974), which held that there was a Seventh Amendment" 'right of jury trial when the United States sues .

Injunctive relief was therefore impractical except with regard to a small portion of the land.2 App. The Court of Appeals in this case also found unpersuasive the dictum in Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103, 115 (1909), and in United States v. Regan, 232 U.S. 37, 46-47 (1914), that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee applies to civil actions to collect a civil penalty.

Studio Website Design, 8086 Microprocessor Architecture, New River Community And Technical College, Antea Group Sustainability, How Did Adam And Eve Die, Patta Amsterdam, Marie Of Anjou, What Does A Poet Laureate Do, Children Of God, St Ives Jewellers, Ibclc Near Me, Cases Like Swann V Charlotte-mecklenburg Board Of Education Served As Evidence That, Fitness Trampoline, Ryzen 3200g, Wedding Readings About Adventure, Scriveners Of London, St Mary's Catholic Primary School Uniform, Best Figure 8 Descender, Famous Female Hip Hop Dancers, Led Studio Light Kit,