Civil Court-Based Reforms

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 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.

Cartoon depicting an individual counting the days behind bars while a prosecutor is buried under paperwork

How Overburdened Prosecutors Harm Defendants

By |

Public defenders aren’t the only ones burdened by excessive caseloads. Prosecutors also face widespread high-volume workloads, and the result can mean delays, weak-case backlogs, overlooked alternative, and unintentional Brady violations. This bonus “Student Voices” blog proposes reforms such as randomized controlled trial research and data-informed case screening.

Cartoon depicting a police officer taking the shirt off of an individual's back and declaring that it was used in a crime.

Civil Forfeiture’s Access to Justice Problem

By |

File this one under “historic laws in need of modernizing.” Civil forfeiture—the act of seizing and forfeiting physical property, regardless of whether an individual has been charged with a crime — has its roots in customs and piracy cases. But today, in addition to serving as a tool to pad police department’s budgets, it more often keeps cars, cash, and possessions out of the hands of potentially innocent individuals with no guarantee of legal representation. The result is an access to justice failure, as reported by HLS student Joe Liberman in this week’s “Student Voices” blog and podcast episode.

Cartoon depicting a parent and child stuck on a life boat with the S.S. Courthouse boat nearby holding case storage and S.S. Resources boat holding everything the parent and child need (social work, financial help, etc.).

Navigating Unmet Social Needs: A Closer Look at New York Family Courts

By |

In his 2026 State of the Judiciary Address, Hon. Rowan Wilson, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, took the opportunity to bring attention to one of the state’s most critical access to justice problems: the difficulties families face while navigating New York Family Court. Despite judicial efforts to address families’ underlying social needs, the legislative and executive branches of the state—and in the larger context, the nation—have the responsibility to implement more lasting improvements.

Cartoon depicts inmate waiting to be admitted into a virtual child welfare hearing

Locked Out: Structural Barriers to the Child Welfare System for Incarcerated Parents

By |

For a child, parental incarceration is a legal gateway into the child welfare system. Parents have rights to participate in custody proceedings, but incarceration erects barriers that can make meaningful participation difficult. In this “Student Voices” post, we look at the current system–one in eight incarcerated parents lose their parental rights–and potential solutions to these barriers that, if left unchecked, can effectively lock incarcerated parents out of the child welfare process.

Scroll to Top