Chin Fook v. McGrath
CHIN FOOK v. McGRATH, Attorney General
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Erskine (author)
Analysis
The court considered the defendants' motion to deny a jury trial in an action for the declaration of United States nationality. The court granted the motion, holding that the action is a statutory declaratory judgment proceeding that is sui generis and not a 'suit at common law' subject to the Seventh Amendment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' motion for denial of a jury trial is granted.“Defendants’ motion for denial of a jury trial in this action is hereby granted for the following reasons:” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the action is a statutory proceeding for the declaration of nationality under 8 U.S.C.A. § 903. Under the Seventh Amendment, the right to a jury trial attaches only to 'suits at common law.' Because the action is a statutory creation that did not exist at common law, it is not a 'suit at common law' and thus the Seventh Amendment does not apply. The court's reliance on the nature of the action as a statutory remedy rather than a common law one is consistent with the legal framework for determining the applicability of the Seventh Amendment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly applies the principle that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not extend to statutory actions that are not 'suits at common law.' The court relies on the seminal Supreme Court case Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman to support the proposition that declaratory judgment actions are sui generis. The additional reasoning based on the specific statutory language of 8 U.S.C.A. § 903 reinforces the conclusion that Congress did not intend to provide a jury trial in this specific context. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authority.
Opinion — Erskine
ERSKINE, District Judge.
Defendants’ motion for denial of a jury trial in this action is hereby granted for the following reasons:
1. A judicial proceeding for declaration of United States nationality under Section 903 of the Nationality Code, 8 U.S. C.A., is essentially a declaratory judgment action, providing a special remedy for a limited class of persons. Like all declaratory judgment actions it is neither legal nor equitable, but sui generis; it is a new form of procedure for deciding -cases both at law and in equity. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407; Borchard, The Fed. Dec. Judg. Act, 21 Virginia Law Review 35, 38. As such it does not fall within the category of “suits at common law” to which the 7th Amendment requirement of a jury trial applies.
2. Since the remedy sought in this action is one given by statute and not by common law, the terms of the statute must be followed. Included in said statute is a provision for the admission of the claimant to the United States “upon the condition that he shall be subject to deportation in case it shall be decided by the court that he is not a national of the .United States.” It seems clear from these words that Congress did not intend to give such a claimant the right to a jury trial.