## Facts

- A federal district court local rule in the District of Montana required that civil juries consist of six persons.
- In a diversity civil action, the presiding judge set trial before a six-person jury under the local rule.
- The civil litigant sought mandamus in the court of appeals to compel a 12-person jury.
- The litigant argued that a six-person civil jury violated the Seventh Amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 2072 and conflicted with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 48 and 83.
- The court of appeals denied mandamus and sustained the local rule.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Seventh Amendment requires a 12-person jury in federal civil trials.
2. Whether a local rule requiring six-person civil juries violates 28 U.S.C. § 2072 by failing to preserve the civil jury right “as at common law.”
3. Whether a local rule fixing civil jury size at six is inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48, and therefore invalid under Rule 83.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of mandamus and upheld the local rule in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that a six-person jury in federal civil cases satisfies the Seventh Amendment.
- The Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2072 does not require preservation of a 12-person jury as a fixed historical attribute of the civil jury right.
- The Court held the local rule was not inconsistent with Rule 48 because Rule 48 addresses party stipulations on jury size rather than prescribing a mandatory baseline jury size for all civil cases.

## Legal Principles

- The Seventh Amendment preserves the substance of the jury-trial right in suits at common law and does not constitutionalize every historical feature of jury practice, including a fixed jury size of 12.
- A six-person civil jury is constitutionally permissible if it remains capable of performing the jury’s core function of collective lay factfinding.
- The Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. § 2072) preserves the right to trial by jury without freezing all common-law procedural details in place.
- A local civil rule is not “inconsistent” with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48 where Rule 48 is limited to permitting party stipulations about jury size and does not set an exclusive minimum or default size.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a federal district court may, by valid local rule, require six-person juries in civil trials because the Seventh Amendment and § 2072 preserve the essential civil jury right rather than a mandatory 12-person panel, and Rule 48 does not bar a court from setting jury size by rule absent party stipulation.


Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973)