Tilting the Scales Of Justice: Conservatives’ Multi-Front Assault on Access to the Courts

The purpose of this Special Report is to provide analysis and background that will enable broader understanding of the multi-front efforts by conservatives to narrow access to the courts, their origins, purposes, provisions, and effects, so as to inform and strengthen advocacy across all these arenas.

Summary

Conservatives have been engaged in a long-term campaign to promote the agenda of business advocates to restrict individuals’ access to the courts. In Congress, conservatives have repeatedly introduced legislation designed to substantially obstruct individuals’ access to the courts when corporations and other powerful organizations violate their rights. In addition, conservatives have pursued this courthouse door-closing agenda in the federal courts, and, more obscurely but not insignificantly, before committees of the Federal Judicial Conference, which are appointed by the Chief Justice to develop amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At this juncture, business interests have already moved far along in achieving significant components of their agenda, both through legislation and Congressional lobbying as well as through strategic federal court litigation during the tenure of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist and current Chief Justice John Roberts.

Even when Congress tends strongly towards conservative interests guided by business advocates, as it does now in both chambers, progressives can successfully beat back anti-civil justice legislation. They did exactly that during the last budget battle by forcing the exclusion of Chamber-backed language aimed at blocking a pending Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule barring the use of class action bans in arbitration clauses in consumer financial agreements. This issue is even more crucial than ever as we contemplate the future and importance of the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose of this Special Report is to provide analysis and background that will enable broader understanding of these multi-front court access narrowing efforts, their origins, purposes, provisions, and effects, so as to inform and strengthen advocacy across all these arenas.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
July 28, 2026

CAC Release: Corporations Fare Even Better Than President Trump in the Supreme Court, Constitutional Accountability Center Finds

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court has just released its final decisions in cases argued...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

AbbVie v. Department of Health and Human Services

In AbbVie v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...
Corporate Accountability
June 5, 2026

US Supreme Court backs federal regulators in wins for FCC and SEC

Reuters
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod was quoted in Reuters discussing recent Supreme Court wins for...
Corporate Accountability
June 4, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Recognizes the Importance of History in Validating FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Federal Communications Commission v....
By: Smita Ghosh, Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Corporate Accountability
April 24, 2026

How the Supreme Court will have a major impact on the economy this spring

CNN
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod spoke to CNN about big business at the Supreme Court. Read...
Corporate Accountability
July 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Federal Communications...
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, Smita Ghosh