Ball v. DOH and the Right to a Jury Trial: Is the Seventh Amendment Coming to the States?
I. Background of the Case and Facts
In Ball v. New York State Department of Health, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2258, Index No. 2024-469 (Sup Ct NY Schoharie Cnty., April 14, 2025) decided in April 2025 by the Supreme Court in Schoharie County, EMT Justin Ball challenged the disciplinary process initiated against him by the New York State Department of Health (DOH). Ball had been charged with a series of patient abuse and negligence violations following an ambulance call that ended in injury and a patient complaint.
Rather than proceed with the DOH’s administrative hearing, Ball filed suit, arguing that the Seventh Amendment entitled him to a jury trial. At the heart of the case was a constitutional challenge that has rarely made its way into state court: whether the Seventh Amendment's civil jury guarantee applies to state proceedings through the doctrine of incorporation.
II. Ball’s Legal Challenge and Jury Demand
Ball argued that the administrative charges against him — which included physical and psychological abuse, neglect, and breach of confidentiality — amounted to common-law torts. As such, he claimed they should be adjudicated in a civil trial by jury, as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Ball further argued that the potential consequences — thousands of dollars in fines and revocation of his EMT license — triggered the Seventh Amendment's protections, which apply when the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.
The Department of Health countered that the Seventh Amendment does not apply to the states at all and that New York administrative hearings are not subject to federal jury trial requirements. They leaned heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1875 decision in Walker v. Sauvinet, which held that a jury trial in a state civil case is not a “privilege or immunity” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
III. How the Court Handled Incorporation Doctrine
The Schoharie County court, in a sharply reasoned and historically detailed opinion, rejected DOH’s argument that Walker foreclosed the issue. The court distinguished between the Privileges or Immunities Clause (addressed in Walker) and the Due Process Clause, which is now the primary vehicle for incorporation.
Drawing on U.S. Supreme Court precedent — notably Timbs v. Indiana (2019) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) — the court applied the modern incorporation test: whether a right is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
What followed was a robust historical review. The court cited colonial and state constitutional protections of civil jury trials, early Congressional actions (like the Northwest Ordinance), and the centrality of jury rights in the Declaration of Independence. It concluded that civil jury trials clearly meet the test for substantive due process protection.
Crucially, the court emphasized that while Walker remains binding precedent as to privileges or immunities, it does not govern due process incorporation. Nor is a state court prohibited from resolving federal constitutional questions, especially where U.S. Supreme Court precedent has left the matter open.
IV. Why This Case May Change How New York Views Civil Jury Rights
This decision is significant not because it creates binding precedent across the state, but because it represents a rare and assertive state-court-level engagement with incorporation doctrine — specifically around the last unincorporated provision of the Bill of Rights.
It also frames the Seventh Amendment not as a procedural safeguard, but as a substantive liberty interest. That classification may prove critical for litigants in future administrative or professional discipline proceedings, particularly where reputational and financial consequences are high.
If other courts adopt similar reasoning, this could reshape how states approach administrative enforcement actions — especially where those actions resemble common-law disputes typically tried in court.
V. Potential Ripple Effects on State Adjudicatory Systems
The implications of Ball v. DOH may reach far beyond professional licensing disputes. If the reasoning in this case is adopted more widely, it could invite renewed scrutiny of New York's many non-jury adjudicatory forums — including small claims courts, administrative tribunals, and traffic violation bureaus.
A. Small Claims Courts Without Jury Trials
New York’s small claims courts are designed for speed and efficiency, often at the expense of procedural formality. Notably, they do not provide a right to a jury trial — even where the amount in controversy exceeds the $20 threshold cited in the Seventh Amendment. If civil jury trials are indeed “deeply rooted” in American legal tradition, as the Ball court argues, that lack of jury access in small claims court could be constitutionally problematic.
While small claims courts are creatures of statute and operate under simplified procedures, the logic of Ball raises the question: Should efficiency override a fundamental constitutional right?
B. Administrative Hearings for Traffic Violations
In New York City and other jurisdictions, traffic violations are handled by administrative bodies like the Department of Motor Vehicles' Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB). These hearings often involve significant penalties — license points, fines, and even suspensions — but are conducted without juries, and often without full judicial procedures.
Under Ball’s reasoning, these adjudicatory systems — especially when imposing fines, points, or license suspensions — could now be viewed as implicating rights that traditionally required a jury determination under the common law.
C. A Broader Question for the State: When Is a Jury Trial Constitutionally Required?
The decision in Ball reopens a long-dormant question: when does the form of adjudication — not just the outcome — trigger constitutional protections? By classifying jury trials as a substantive due process right, the case invites litigants, advocates, and perhaps appellate courts to reexamine a wide range of state adjudicatory schemes where juries have historically been excluded.
This may mark the beginning of a broader constitutional recalibration in New York — one in which the state must reconsider how far it can go in sacrificing the right to a jury trial in the name of administrative efficiency.
