Thomas v. Humboldt Cty.

1 Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2025)
Statement of G
ORSUCH, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CORRINE MORGAN THOMAS, ET AL. v. HUMBOLDT
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 24–1180. Decided October 14, 2025
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of J
USTICE GORSUCH respecting the denial of
certiorari.
In Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S.
211, 217 (1916), this Court held that the Seventh Amend-
ment’s civil jury trial right is not enforceable against the
States. Petitioners ask us to reconsider that decision. But
a number of “vehicle” problems make it unlikely that we
could do so in this case. See Brief in Opposition 21–44. Ac-
cordingly, I agree with the Court’s decision to deny review.
At the same time, I do not doubt that Bombolis warrants a
second look.
As petitioners observe, Bombolis is something of a relic.
There, the Court dismissed as “strange” the notion that the
Seventh Amendment—or, for that matter, any of the Bill of
Rights—might be enforceable against the States. 241 U. S.,
at 217–218. But what once might have seemed strange al-
most goes without saying today. In the years since Bom-
bolis, this Court has “shed any reluctance” about the idea
that the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporate[s]” against
the States many of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of
Rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 764 (2010).
To be sure, debates exist around the edges. There are, for
example, those who hold that the Fourteenth Amendment
incorporates provisions of the Bill of Rights through its Due
Process Clause, while others believe that the Privileges or
Immunities Clause supplies the truer source of authority

2 THOMAS v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY
Statement of G
ORSUCH, J.
for the job. See generally Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. 146,
157 (2019) (G
ORSUCH, J., concurring). Similarly, some have
argued that the Fourteenth Amendment selectively incor-
porates only fundamental or deeply rooted aspects of the
Bill of Rights, while others have suggested that, under that
test or any other, the Fourteenth Amendment renders all of
the first eight Amendments enforceable against the States.
Compare Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27 (1949) (over-
ruled by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961)), with Adamson
v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 74–75 (1947) (Black, J., dissent-
ing).
But whatever one’s position on matters like those, it is
hard to imagine how the Seventh Amendment might not be
among those rights the Fourteenth Amendment secures
against the States. Under this Court’s contemporary case
law, States must respect the First Amendment’s Establish-
ment Clause, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms,
the Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimina-
tion and its Takings Clause, the Eighth Amendment’s Ex-
cessive Fines Clause; the list goes on. See, e.g., McDonald,
561 U. S., at 764, n. 12; Timbs, 586 U. S., at 150 (majority
opinion). On what account should the Seventh Amendment
be treated differently?
Surely, those who founded our Nation considered the
right to trial by jury a fundamental part of their birthright.
See SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U. S. 109, 121 (2024). So much so
that they cited its deprivation at the hands of colonial au-
thorities as one of the reasons for breaking ties with Eng-
land. Ibid. After the Revolution, too, the new States
promptly “restored the institution . . . to its prior promi-
nence.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322, 340–
341 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). “Indeed, [t]he right
to trial by jury was probably the only one universally se-
cured by the first American state constitutions.” Id., at 341
(internal quotation marks omitted). If the Federalists and
Anti-Federalists disagreed about anything when it came to

3 Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2025)
Statement of G
ORSUCH, J.
the civil jury trial right, it may have only been about
whether the right was “the most important of all individual
rights, or simply one of the most important rights.” K.
Klein, The Myth of How to Interpret the Seventh Amend-
ment Right to a Civil Jury Trial, 53 Ohio St. L. J. 1005,
1010 (1992) (emphasis in original).
Nor had much changed by the time of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s adoption. The right to a civil jury trial re-
mained so deeply rooted that perhaps 97% of Americans at
the time lived in States that guaranteed the right. See S.
Calabresi & S. Agudo, Individual Rights Under State Con-
stitutions When the Fourteenth Amendment Was Ratified
in 1868, 87 Texas L. Rev. 7, 116 (2008). In fact, the civil
jury trial right may have enjoyed even more robust protec-
tion in American States than various other rights this
Court has deemed fit for incorporation. See Timbs, 586
U. S., at 152 (35 out of 37 States expressly forbade excessive
fines at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption);
McDonald, 561 U. S., at 777 (22 of the 37 States “explicitly
protected the right to keep and bear arms” in 1868).
That Bombolis lingers on the books not only leaves our
law misshapen, it subjects ordinary Americans to a two-
tiered system of justice. Take just one example. When a
federal agency accuses someone of fraud and seeks civil
penalties, the Seventh Amendment guarantees that indi-
vidual the right to have the case heard by a jury of his
peers—not by other agency officials who work side by side
with those bringing the charges. See Jarkesy, 603 U. S., at
120–121. But, thanks to Bombolis, state and local agencies
pursuing similar charges and similar relief sometimes
claim that they are free to dispense with the hassle of prov-
ing their case to a jury. For those in the government’s cross-
hairs, that difference is no costless affair. No less than at
the founding, civil juries today play a critical role in check-
ing governmental overreach, holding public officials ac-

4 THOMAS v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY
Statement of G
ORSUCH, J.
countable, and ensuring a fair hearing for those who come
before our courts.
Bombolis may survive today, but this Court should con-
front its Seventh Amendment holding soon. A right “‘of
such importance,’ ” one that “‘occupies so firm a place in our
history,’” deserves no less. Jarkesy, 603 U. S., at 121 (quot-
ing Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 486 (1935)).