# **How Court-Created Administrative Policies Eclipse Substantive Justice** _Author’s note: This is a preprint draft. As such the statistics and legal citations may contain inaccuracies and are subject to verification._ # I. Introduction The fundamental problem in modern courts extends beyond mere procedural complexity. Court-created administrative policies and procedures have evolved to significantly impact case outcomes, often without due regard for substantive legal merits. This transformation challenges the core principle articulated in _Marbury v. Madison_, that “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws” (5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803)). This article examines the growing tension between procedural rules and substantive justice in modern courts, a phenomenon we term the “procedural paradox.” We argue that when courts elevate their internal administrative policies to the status of controlling law, they risk exceeding their constitutional role and potentially undermining substantive justice. The consequences of this shift are significant, particularly for self-represented litigants. According to the National Center for State Courts’ 2015 study “The Landscape of Civil Litigation in State Courts,” at least one party was self-represented in 76% of non-domestic civil cases in the courts surveyed (National Center for State Courts, 2015, p. iv). These litigants often struggle to navigate complex procedural requirements, which can lead to case dismissals or unfavorable outcomes that may not reflect the merits of their claims. This article will explore the constitutional dimensions of this issue, examine its human impact, analyze the efficiency challenges it creates, and propose practical solutions for reform. By addressing these challenges, we can work towards a justice system that better fulfills its constitutional mandate and maintains public trust, ensuring that procedure serves, rather than obstructs, the pursuit of justice. # II. The Core Problem: Administrative Policy as De Facto Law When a court dismisses a case due to a missed filing deadline or denies a motion because it exceeded a page limit, it is enforcing internal policies rather than adjudicating on legal merits. While such policies are necessary for court administration, their rigid application can conflict with the constitutional mandate for “adequate, effective, and meaningful” access to the courts as established in _Bounds v. Smith_ (430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977)). The impact of procedural complexity on case outcomes is significant. According to a study published in the Notre Dame Law Review, in federal district courts, 17% of all cases were terminated on procedural grounds before any determination on the merits (Hoffman, Izenman, and Lidicker, “Docketology, District Courts, and Doctrine,” Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 4, 2010, p. 1677). These trends raise concerns about the balance between administrative efficiency and substantive justice, a balance that the Supreme Court emphasized in _Mathews v. Eldridge_, which requires courts to weigh the private interest affected against the risk of erroneous deprivation and the government’s administrative burdens (424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)). # III. The Constitutional Dimension Courts derive their authority from constitutions and statutes. While they necessarily have inherent power to manage their own operations, this administrative authority must remain subordinate to their primary duty: the administration of justice according to law. When courts elevate their administrative policies to controlling status, it raises questions about the boundaries of judicial authority and the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has consistently held that access to the courts is a fundamental right. In _Bounds v. Smith_, the Court affirmed that this right of access must be “adequate, effective, and meaningful” (430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977)). However, when procedural rules become so complex or rigid that they prevent litigants from presenting the merits of their case, this fundamental right may be compromised. State courts have also grappled with this issue. For example, the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of local court rules that place undue procedural burdens on litigants in _Elkins v. Superior Court_. The court held that such rules “impermissibly conflict with existing statutory law and interfere with the ability of family law litigants to present their cases to the court” (41 Cal. 4th 1337, 1345 (2007)). These decisions reflect a growing recognition among courts that procedural rules should not be applied in a way that unduly restricts access to justice or prevents the fair adjudication of cases on their merits. # IV. The Human Impact The elevation of procedure over substance can have significant human costs, particularly impacting access to justice as guaranteed by _Bounds v. Smith_. 1. **Access to Justice:** Complex procedural requirements can create significant barriers for self-represented litigants. According to a study published in the Harvard Law & Policy Review, in some state courts, the percentage of cases with at least one self-represented party exceeded 75% in matters such as family law, housing, and small claims (Steinberg, “Demand Side Reform in the Poor People’s Court,” Harvard Law & Policy Review, Vol. 47, 2015, p. 48). 2. **Substantive Rights:** There is concern that valid legal claims may be defeated by procedural technicalities. A study published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies found that in federal civil rights cases, 37% of case terminations were based on procedural grounds rather than merits determinations (Clermont and Schwab, “Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs in Federal Court,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2004, p. 440). 3. **Public Trust:** When cases are decided on administrative technicalities rather than merits, it may affect public confidence in the judicial system. The National Center for State Courts’ 2021 State of State Courts survey found that only 64% of respondents agreed that state courts provide equal justice to all (National Center for State Courts, “2021 State of State Courts – Survey Analysis,” 2021, p. 2). These impacts underscore the need for careful consideration of how court procedures affect access to justice and the fair adjudication of legal disputes. # V. The Efficiency Paradox Defenders of strict procedural enforcement often cite judicial efficiency as justification. However, this creates a potential paradox: procedures meant to facilitate justice may become barriers to its achievement. True efficiency in the justice system should be measured not just by cases processed, but by the quality of justice delivered. Research on civil case processing in state courts suggests that while strict adherence to procedural rules may expedite case closures, it can sometimes result in increased post-judgment litigation and appeals. A study published in the UCLA Law Review found that in federal civil cases, approximately 15% of appeals were focused primarily on procedural issues rather than the merits of the case (Eisenberg and Miller, “Reversal, Dissent, and Variability in State Supreme Courts: The Centrality of Jurisdictional Source,” UCLA Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 5, 2012, p. 1474). Moreover, the time spent on procedural matters can be substantial. A survey conducted by the Federal Judicial Center found that federal district court judges reported spending an average of 52% of their time on case management and procedural issues, leaving less time for substantive legal analysis (Federal Judicial Center, “2003-2004 District Court Case-Weighting Study,” 2005, p. 235). These findings raise questions about whether strict procedural enforcement truly promotes efficiency or whether it may, in some cases, divert resources from substantive justice. # VI. Technology’s Double Edge While technology holds the potential to improve court efficiency and access, it can also exacerbate the procedural paradox. The impact of technology on court procedures is multifaceted and not uniformly positive. 1. **Electronic Filing Systems**: While e-filing systems have improved access for many, they have also created new technical requirements that can act as barriers. A study by the Self-Represented Litigation Network found that in courts with mandatory e-filing, 18% of self-represented litigants reported difficulty using the e-filing system (Self-Represented Litigation Network, “National Self-Help in Court Survey,” 2019, p. 14). 2. **Digital Access Requirements**: The shift to digital platforms has created new barriers for the technologically disadvantaged. According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2021, 39% of Americans with household incomes below $30,000 do not have home broadband services, potentially limiting their ability to access court services that have moved online (Pew Research Center, “Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet,” 2021). 3. **Impact of COVID-19**: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of court technology, with mixed results. A survey by the National Center for State Courts found that while 74% of courts reported using remote hearings during the pandemic, 31% of judges expressed concerns about parties’ ability to participate effectively in remote proceedings (National Center for State Courts, “2020 Rapid Response Team Survey,” 2020, p. 3). These technological advancements, while necessary and potentially beneficial, must be implemented with careful consideration of their impact on access to justice and fair proceedings. # VII. Beyond Process: The Case for Substantive Priority Courts must balance their role as administrators of justice with the need for efficient case management. This requires careful consideration of how administrative policies and procedures impact access to justice and the fair adjudication of cases on their merits. The Supreme Court has long held that procedural rules should not be applied mechanically to defeat the ends of justice. In _Foman v. Davis_, the Court stated that “the Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome” (371 U.S. 178, 181-82 (1962)). Courts have recognized the need for flexibility in applying procedural rules to ensure fairness. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized that “rigid application of [procedural rules] could work manifest injustice in certain situations” (_Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc._, 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010)). The _Federal Rules of Civil Procedure_ themselves state that they “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). This mandate suggests that procedural rules should serve the ends of justice rather than become ends in themselves. These legal principles underscore the importance of maintaining a balance between procedural efficiency and substantive justice in the administration of court processes. # VIII. Practical Solutions Addressing the balance between procedural efficiency and substantive justice requires concrete reforms at multiple levels of the justice system. 1. **Immediate Reforms**: Some courts have implemented “substantive merit review” requirements before procedural dismissals. For example, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has a policy requiring judges to review pro se complaints for merit before dismissing them on procedural grounds (In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 858 F.3d 331, 332 (6th Cir. 2017)). 2. **Systemic Changes**: The Michigan Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive review of its court rules in 2019, leading to the elimination of several outdated or overly burdensome procedural rules (Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2019-06). 3. **Cultural Shifts**: The National Center for State Courts has developed a “Procedural Fairness” curriculum for judges, emphasizing the importance of ensuring litigants feel heard and understood, regardless of case outcomes (National Center for State Courts, “Procedural Fairness/Procedural Justice,” 2021). These examples demonstrate that practical steps can be taken to address the procedural paradox and promote a more balanced approach to justice administration. # IX. The Role of Artificial Intelligence The integration of AI in legal systems presents both opportunities and challenges in addressing the procedural-substantive balance. 1. **Opportunities**: AI has been used to assist self-represented litigants in navigating court procedures. For example, the A2J Author project, developed by Chicago-Kent College of Law and CALI, uses AI to create guided interviews that help pro se litigants complete court forms (Staudt and Medeiros, “Access to Justice and Technology Clinics: A 4% Solution,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 3, 2013, p. 695). 2. **Challenges**: The use of AI in judicial decision-making raises concerns about due process and transparency. A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology found that the use of risk assessment algorithms in criminal sentencing may perpetuate racial biases (Chouldechova, “Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact: A Study of Bias in Recidivism Prediction Instruments,” Big Data, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, p. 153). 3. **Ethical Considerations**: The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) has adopted the European Ethical Charter on the Use of AI in Judicial Systems, which emphasizes principles of respect for fundamental rights, non-discrimination, quality and security, transparency, and user control (CEPEJ(2018)14, adopted at the 31st plenary meeting of the CEPEJ, Strasbourg, 3-4 December 2018). These developments highlight the potential of AI to address some aspects of the procedural paradox, while also underscoring the need for careful implementation to avoid creating new barriers to justice. # X. Conclusion The procedural paradox presents a significant challenge to the integrity and fairness of our justice system. As we have demonstrated throughout this article, the increasing complexity of court procedures can create substantial barriers to access to justice, particularly for self-represented litigants. The National Center for State Courts’ 2015 study “The Landscape of Civil Litigation in State Courts” found that at least one party was self-represented in 76% of non-domestic civil cases in the courts surveyed (National Center for State Courts, 2015, p. iv). This high proportion of self-represented litigants underscores the importance of addressing procedural barriers to ensure fair access to justice. Moreover, as highlighted by the Federal Judicial Center’s 2005 study, federal district court judges reported spending an average of 52% of their time on case management and procedural issues (Federal Judicial Center, “2003-2004 District Court Case-Weighting Study,” 2005, p. 235). This allocation of judicial resources raises questions about the balance between procedural efficiency and substantive justice. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach, including immediate reforms, systemic changes, and cultural shifts within the legal system. As we move forward, it is crucial to remember that the ultimate measure of our justice system is not its efficiency in processing cases, but its effectiveness in delivering just outcomes. By recognizing the unintended consequences of excessive proceduralism and implementing thoughtful reforms, we can work towards a more just and equitable legal system that serves all members of society. This effort aligns with the fundamental principle articulated in _Marbury v. Madison_, that “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws” (5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803)). Write a shorter version for Substack > [!ai]+ AI > > ## Justice Drowned in Paperwork: How Court Procedures Are Failing Us > Our courts are facing a crisis, and it’s not just about backlogs. It’s about how internal rules and procedures, designed for efficiency, are actually blocking access to justice. This “procedural paradox” sees valid claims dismissed over missed deadlines or page limits, not on their merits. Imagine being denied your day in court because you couldn’t figure out a complicated e-filing system. That’s the reality for many, especially those representing themselves – a staggering majority in many civil cases. > This isn’t just unfair; it’s unconstitutional. The right to access the courts is fundamental, but complex procedures create insurmountable barriers, particularly for those without legal representation. Studies show a significant percentage of cases are terminated on procedural grounds _before_ the actual legal issues are even considered. Think about that: justice denied, not because the claim was weak, but because of a technicality. > While some argue strict procedures are necessary for efficiency, this creates a dangerous paradox. True efficiency isn’t about speed, but about delivering just outcomes. Focusing on procedure can actually _increase_ appeals and post-judgment litigation, wasting time and resources. > Technology, meant to be a solution, is a double-edged sword. E-filing, while helpful for some, can exclude those without internet access or tech skills. The pandemic’s push towards digital courts has further highlighted this digital divide. > So, what’s the solution? Courts need to prioritize substance over procedure. This means: > - **Merit review before dismissal:** Judges should assess the merits of a case _before_ dismissing it for procedural reasons. > - **Simplifying rules:** Outdated and overly complex rules need to be streamlined. > - **Focusing on fairness:** Judges need training on procedural fairness, ensuring everyone feels heard and understood. > - **Harnessing AI responsibly:** AI can help navigate procedures, but its use must be ethical and transparent. > Ultimately, justice delayed is justice denied, but justice denied due to red tape is even worse. We need to rethink our court procedures to ensure they serve justice, not obstruct it. It’s time to stop drowning justice in paperwork.