Student Voices

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 | | Leave a Comment

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 | | Leave a Comment

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 | | Leave a Comment

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 | | Leave a Comment

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 | | Leave a Comment

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.

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

By | | Leave a Comment

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 | | Leave a Comment

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 both worker unions and worker centers as ballerinas. The "union" ballerina asks the "worker center" ballerina how she got so flexible.

Worker Centers Build Collective Worker Power

By | | Leave a Comment

Labor unions, known for advancing workers’ rights, are limited by the National Labor Relations Act and whom they represent. This scope typically excludes low-wage workers–namely, immigrants and gig workers–from unionization support. So where have these excluded workers found access to justice in the form of legal support and collective action organization? Community-based worker centers.

Cartoon depicting Blob accessing AI legal help from various publicly accessible locations--library, municipal court self-help center, community centers, and 'AI terminals'.

Distribution, Not Just Design: Rethinking Access to AI Legal Help

By | | Leave a Comment

To make AI legal help truly accessible requires less focus on the AI tools themselves and more focus on the distribution channels where people will use them. Libraries, court self-help centers, community institutions, and kiosks all bring accessibility-related challenges from privacy, workflow support, and overreliance. This “Student Voices” post argues for AI literacy support, as well as improved policy standards and more funding, to help those who need legal AI help the most.

Cartoon depicting a scale measuring the Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights, with public accountability being outweighed by police protections.

LEOBR-oken? Barriers to Justice in the Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights

By | | Leave a Comment

Do increased procedural protections for police officers undercut access to justice? Are citizens less likely to be able to hold police officers accountable for misconduct under the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights (LEOBR)? This potential conflict constitutes this week’s bonus post, which examines the history and efficacy of LEOBR while also proposing a randomized controlled trial to study both the perceived fairness and actual fairness of LEOBR.

Scroll to Top