Replies

It's a plain violation of Amendment 7:

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.

Sounds like a slam dunk case to me. It’s amazing how politicians won’t even consider the Constitutionality of any legislation they consider, and or pass. They just do as they wish, because they know the courts are likely to rule on the side of big government. It has almost become unusual for courts to rule on the side of the individual/liberty.

I beg to differ. First, the 7th Amendment does not, and never was intended to, apply to the States. When the Constitution was drafted it was clearly understood by all concerned that each State was responsible for its own courts. Thus the specific jurisdiction of the courts and the right to jury trial in civil cases are matters for that State to decide.

As to the Missouri case, the MO Supreme Court decided on statutory grounds. The City of Springfield has municipal courts only because the statutes of the State create and empower those Courts. Springfield tried to do an “end run” around giving people charged with red light camera violations their day in front of a municipal judge with all of the rights a defendant in those courts would have. The Mo Supremes said (all seven of them); whoa - you can't pull that stuff ‘round here.

This case has been watched by other cities since it was filed and this case will kill the movement to red light cameras in many of those cities. I can't say it happened soon enough for me.