Abstract:This paper explores the ability of technology—specifically, online judicial procedures—to eliminate systematic group-level litigation outcome disparities (i.e., disparities correlated with the visible identity markers of litigants). Our judicial system has long operated under the assumption that it can only be “impartial enough.” After all, judges, like all human beings, harbor implicit biases that are often sizable, unconscious, and triggered automatically, and research indicates that strategies to curb implicit biases in human decision making may be ineffective, especially in the face of the resource and caseload constraints of modern-day adjudication. The recent emergence of online court proceedings, however, offers new hope for reducing disparities. By allowing hearings to occur without face-to-face interactions, online legal proceedings may reduce the salience of group identity traits, thereby reducing unwarranted disparities and enhancing the impartiality of the justice system. Yet online proceedings differ from in-person hearings in ways beyond merely reducing the salience of race, gender, and age—and these differences may also influence group-level outcome disparities. Using state court data, we study group-level disparities in online and offline civil infraction cases. We present evidence that is consistent with the existence of implicit or other structural biases in face-to-face proceedings; all else equal, legal outcomes appear to vary by litigant age and race but not by gender. These disparities fade with the change in medium, possibly by reducing implicit bias. We explore the implications of our findings for system impartiality and weigh the challenges confronting efforts to realize substantive, procedural, and digital justice in online courts.

Panel selection on high courts

The Effect of Ideology and Resource Advantages on Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court

A Separation-of-Powers Approach to the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Caseload

Towards Just, Fair and Interpretable Methods for Judicial Subset Selection.

Judicial hierarchy and discursive influence

Justice blocks and predictability of US Supreme Court votes

Are Litigation Outcome Disparities Inevitable? Courts, Technology, and the Future of Impartiality

Strong consensus on US Supreme Court spans a century

Inputs and Outputs on Appeal: An Empirical Study of Briefs, Big Law, and Case Complexity

An Analysis of the System of U.S. Federal Court of Appeals from Historical, Procedural and Organisational Perspectives

United Kingdom, United Courts? Hierarchical Interactions and Attention to Precedent in the British Judiciary

Algorithms in the court: does it matter which part of the judicial decision-making is automated?

Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post- Dobbs world

Valence and interactions in judicial voting

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em? How Sitting by Designation Affects Judicial Behavior

Does the appointment of judges increase the output of the judiciary?

Judicial Decision Making under Changing Legal Standards: the Case of Dismissal Arbitration

What Explains Dissent on the High Court of Australia? An Empirical Assessment Using a Cointegration and Error Correction Approach

The Precipitous Decline in Reasoning and Other Key Abilities with Age and Its Implications for Federal Judges

Media Attention and Deliberation on the Supreme Court

Can Economic Theory Be Informative for the Judiciary? Affirmative Action in India via Vertical and Horizontal Reservations