Seventh Amendment Restoration Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 15, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to expand judicial review and the right to a jury trial by allowing individuals to bypass administrative agency proceedings and take their cases directly to federal district courts.
What it actually does
This bill amends Title 5 of the U.S. Code to allow individuals facing an action before an administrative law judge or other agency hearing officer to remove that action to a U.S. district court. The removal process would mirror that used for cases moved from state to federal courts, potentially enabling a jury trial in cases that would otherwise be decided administratively.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill restores Seventh Amendment rights by providing a judicial forum for disputes currently handled by administrative agencies, ensuring due process and a jury trial for individuals facing government actions. They contend it checks the power of the administrative state and provides a more impartial venue for resolving disputes.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill would significantly burden federal district courts, creating massive backlogs and delays, and undermining the specialized expertise and efficiency of administrative agencies. They might also contend it could be used to delay enforcement actions and weaken regulatory oversight.
The bill text is extremely short and easy to read, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its significant implications.
Section 2, amending 5 U.S.C. 702
Authorization for Removal of Administrative Actions to Federal District Court
This provision grants any person facing a legal action before an administrative law judge (ALJ) or other agency hearing officer the right to move their case from the administrative agency to a federal district court. The procedure for this transfer would be similar to how cases are moved from state courts to federal courts, allowing individuals to seek a judicial resolution, potentially including a jury trial, rather than an administrative one.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting individual liberties and property rights by ensuring access to an independent judiciary and the right to a jury trial, which they contend are often absent or diminished in administrative proceedings. They believe it provides a necessary check on the power of unelected agency officials.
Critics contend
Critics would contend that this provision would severely disrupt the efficient functioning of administrative agencies, which are designed to handle complex, specialized matters expeditiously. They argue it would lead to forum shopping, increased litigation costs, and significant delays in resolving disputes, ultimately hindering effective governance and enforcement of laws.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for expanded judicial review and individual rights (specifically the Seventh Amendment) against the principles of administrative efficiency, agency expertise, and the existing structure of the administrative state. It creates a tension between judicial and administrative authority.
The bill specifies that the removal process from an administrative agency to a district court will be "in the same manner in which a notice of removal from a State court is filed under section 1446 of title 28, United States Code."
Section 2(b)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid re-writing existing procedural rules, making the bill concise. It is not evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that leveraging an existing, well-understood federal removal procedure ensures consistency and provides a clear, established framework for transferring cases, avoiding the need to create entirely new procedural rules.
Case against: Opponents might argue that applying state-to-federal court removal rules directly to administrative actions might not be perfectly suited, as administrative proceedings have different jurisdictional and procedural nuances than state court cases, potentially leading to unforeseen complications or litigation over procedural interpretations.
Estimated impact: This procedural detail would govern the mechanics of potentially thousands of removals, influencing timelines, required filings, and grounds for remand.