Civil and Human Rights

Irving v. Florida

Irving v. Florida raised a question central to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a trial by jury. Specifically, at issue in Irving was whether an individual may be convicted of a crime by a jury of fewer than twelve individuals.

Case Summary

On April 30, 2014, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Irving v. Florida.

In 2010, the state of Florida charged Brian Irving with capital sexual battery. After Mr. Irving’s first trial ended in a mistrial, he was tried again and found guilty by a six-person jury and sentenced to life in prison. Although the Florida appeals court affirmed the conviction, because that court did not issue a written opinion, Mr. Irving was not entitled to seek review by the Florida Supreme Court. Mr. Irving filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case.

In our brief, we urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and to hold what the Constitution’s Framing history makes clear and what the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized in dicta: that a jury today, just like a jury at the time of the Framing, must be composed of twelve people. Our brief explained that the Framers, looking to English common law, attached great importance to the jury right. And, just as the Framers’ understanding of the importance of the jury was shaped by English common law, so too was their understanding of what a jury should look like. As we demonstrated in our brief, a defining attribute of the jury as it existed at common law was that it consisted of twelve people; accordingly, the Founders believed that a twelve-person jury was implicit in the fundamental right to trial by jury in criminal cases. In Williams vFlorida, the Supreme Court in 1970 rejected the relevance of this history and held, based on a functional analysis, that the Sixth Amendment does not require twelve-member juries. Our brief demonstrated how the Williams Court’s dismissal of the Framing-era history was inconsistent with the Court’s more recent Sixth Amendment cases.

On May 27, 2014, the Court declined to hear Irving.

Case Timeline

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 19, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.