Cartoon depicting a judge smashing a laptop in which a Zoom meeting took place.

Pro Se Perceptions of Fairness in Remote and In-Person Court

By |

Which is better—in-person or virtual court hearings? That is the basic question at the heart of the Access to Justice Lab’s Online Courts study. While the lab studied the relevant quantitative data to help courts in family law cases, our study partner Emily LaGratta sought to answer the same question through a qualitative study, seeking answers from the perspective of self-represented litigants in family law cases. Measuring litigant satisfaction with effectiveness for court procedures should, in theory, determine the “best” medium for court proceedings, right?

Cartoon depicting a dust bunny from "Death-Kwal Air Filter" handing out a jury slip to a worried individual trying to run away from it.

Are Death-Qualified Juries Qualified?

By |

Jury selection should aim for a balanced and thoughtful panel; in capital cases, that balance is further underscored. This week’s “Student Voices” post argues that “death-qualifying juries”–the practice of excluding jurors who oppose the death penalty–disrupts that balance. Those constitutional guarantees of impartiality, equality, and reliability? Not so ensured with practice. Reform options, however, are not so simple.

Cartoon depicting an auctioneer selling off family land for $100, with a family of bears looking on while sharks in suits bid on the land.

Property Rich, Justice Poor: Heirs’ Property and Involuntary Land Loss

By |

Heirs’ property is the group project no one signed up for. Land inherited without a will and co-owned by many families can easily slip into land unexpectedly lost when a co-tenant forces a partition. Investors then swoop in and outbid family members for the property. The pattern tends to hit hardest with “property rich and cash poor” families, and it’s contributed to a massive decline in African-American property ownership over the last century. Read about the factors leading to heirs’ property issues and the steps, so far, to reform it.

Cartoon depicting an inmate with paper court filings at the door of a Supreme Court courthouse with the doors closed and a sign on the door reading "Martinizing"

The ‘Martinizing’ Problem: Closing Courthouse Doors to Indigent Litigants

By |

How many filings from one individual are too many for a court to hear—73 over 18 years, or 54 over a decade? What about six over 14 years by an incarcerated individual with already compromised access to justice? This “Student Voices” post looks at the history of “Martinizing,” a practice intended to curb frivolous filings; its impact on indigent litigants and access to justice; its decrease in Supreme Court debate over the years; and the dissent of Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson earlier this year that questioned Supreme Court priorities relevant to Martinizing. Could this growing practice of closing courthouse doors prevent a potentially significant future claim from ever being heard?

Cartoon depicting a businessman divided in half. One side is "Asset Co.", with him saying "I'm rich!", while the other half is Liability Co. claiming "Sorry, I'm bankrupt."

Two Steps Behind: Surveying the Current Regulatory Landscape for Texas Two-Step Bankruptcies

By |

When Johnson & Johnson faced liability lawsuits for more than 38,000 cases of ovarian cancer allegedly linked to its asbestos-contaminated baby powder products, they got creative. They filed a Texas Two-Step bankruptcy to protect their assets while managing mass tort liability. The strategy was an attempt to tip the scales of justice in their favor. It would have likewise leveled global settlements and dismissed individuals’ right to their “day in court,” if it had succeeded. This “Student Voices” post examines the Texas Two-Step bankruptcy practice and the access to justice issues it presents.

Cartoon depicting the House as a hen handing out passports to newly hatched chicks, while a comparison shows the hen not handing out passports to the chicks under the new CASA ruling

Trump v. CASA: An Access to Justice Case?

By |

It’s been one year since Trump v. CASA, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of limiting universal (nationwide) injunctions. The ruling severely cut options for large groups of similarly situated people–often poor and vulnerable populations–who cannot afford to file individual lawsuits against potentially harmful federal policies. In doing so, it also ruled in favor of creating massive amounts of fairly redundant work for courts that can’t realistically keep pace with an influx of individual, but similar, lawsuits. Here’s a look at this access-to-justice obstacle and the ways Congress could step in to provide consistent and equal protection of constitutional rights.

Cartoon depicting "Blob" moving a stage curtain with a picture of a confident judge and seeing the actual judge behind the curtain looking concerned.

Why ‘Active Judging’ Isn’t Working (Yet) 

By |

One approach to supporting pro se litigants in civil court (a whopping 76 percent of cases!) is to embrace “active judging”—the practice of judges relaxing formal procedures and explaining legal processes. Only problem is that judges, while open to the idea in theory, seem to have trouble relinquishing control of the complexity built into the current adversarial system. Maybe the onus should fall not on individual judges to enact change but on structural reforms spread throughout the various steps of litigation.

Cartoon depicting a prison inmate at a track, where a judge asks "Here for the PRLA-thon?" and requiring a $450 entry fee and hurdles labeled "injury requirement", "money payment", and "exhaustion."

Time for Change to Prisoners’ Rights Advocacy

By |

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was signed in 1996 as a way of limiting frivolous lawsuits in federal court stemming from prisoners over such egregious civil rights violations as serving crunchy (versus smooth) peanut butter in prisons. It was never intended to harm the reasonable civil rights of prisoners. But 30 years later, criticism from human rights advocates persist while prisoners continue to face procedural and financial hurdles just to have their (often very reasonable) lawsuits even looked at by a judge. In this “Student Voices” blog, Spencer Thieme offers suggestions both on rigorous testing and updating data to make a more compelling case for legislative change.

Cartoon depicting ants triaging wounded ants while a judge dictates how medical cases will be prioritized

“Lawyers for Everyone!”: What Could Go Wrong?

By |

Applying Gideon—the criminal right to counsel—to civil cases seems like a logical step in attaining better access to justice for everyone. So why are three heavy hitters in the access to justice space speaking out against the push for civil Gideon? The reason has to do with expansion and dilution of a limited resource.

Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors–Poster Children for the Access to Justice Gap

By |

Recent immigration proceedings have exposed the particularly vulnerable position that unaccompanied immigrant children face in court. Heavily dependent on federally funded legal aid, their access to legal representation is challenging at best, doomed at worst. This week, we bring you a “Student Voices” blog that examines the current immigration court environment–hostile to reliance on federal support–and looks at alternative paths for funding and legal right to counsel going forward.

Scroll to Top