Although most First Amendment cases focus on the rights of religion, speech, and press, the Amendment also provides for the rights of peaceable assembly and petition.
The latter right received some attention in the case of Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. ____ (2025). It chiefly focused on the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in cases at common law, a right that in this case was tied to the “First Amendment right to file grievances.”
Does a prisoner have a right to a jury trial in a sex harassment suit?
The case arose in when Kyle Richards, an inmate in Michigan’s Baraga Correctional Facility, sued Thomas Perttu, a prison employee, alleging that Perttu had violated his civil rights by sexually harassing him and other inmates. He further alleged that Perttu had destroyed grievance forms that he had filed and threatened to kill him, thereby violating his right to file such grievances under the First Amendment and further guaranteed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA).
In an attempt to allocate judicial resources, the law typically required a litigant to exhaust available grievance procedures before taking a case to court. A Magistrate Judge had held a hearing without a jury in which he concluded that Richards’ allegation that Perttu had destroyed documents lacked credibility and that he had therefore not exhausted administrative remedies. On appeal, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that, since this was a determination of fact that was intimately tied to the First Amendment right of petition, Richards had, under provisions of the Seventh Amendment, been entitled to have a jury decide on this matter.
Supreme Court decision upheld right to jury trial
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion upholding the 6th Circuit's ruling on behalf of the court focused chiefly on interpreting the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which he believed mandated a jury trial to determine matters of fact with respect to exhaustion of remedies. Roberts’ analysis of this act was strongly disputed by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, who disputed Roberts’ interpretation both of the act and of prior precedents.
A group of 23 law professors had weighed in on behalf of Richards as had the Cato Institute, which emphasized the role of juries in holding governmental official accountable (Prakir, Wood and Choi 2025).
The decision emphasized that factual determinations of issues in First Amendment cases are often matters for jury interpretation. Cecillia Wang, the national director of the American Civil Liberties Union, observed that “Today’s decision is important for the rights of incarcerated people, who too often are blocked from having their day in court after prison officers first violate their rights – in this case, alleged sexual abuse – and then take steps to silence them” (ACLU 2025).
John R. Vile is a political science professor and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University.