Over recent decades, the U.S. civil justice system, once the envy of the world, is increasingly failing to fulfill its basic duty of providing an efficient, consistent, and even-handed system for resolving civil disputes.

Politicians and judges in many states have adopted measures that bias the judicial process in favor of plaintiffs, encouraging unwarranted litigation and wildly excessive damage awards. Courthouses appear less like sober forums where the rule of law is applied to resolve genuine disputes and more like casinos where claimants flock to hit the jackpot. It is time to restore the integrity of our civil justice system and make it work fairly for all citizens.

Recommended Stories

• Make late night TV shows funny again
• Trump's war on woke runs into the First Amendment
• Chevron's conduct is not consistent with Trump's agenda

The plaintiffs’ bar has become a potent political force in many states, and some state politicians and judges seem willing to stack the deck against defendants to satisfy this powerful interest group. The readiness of others to skew the justice system seems to reflect progressive “social justice” ideas that courts should act as redistributionist Robin Hoods in what they see as the primal struggle between a privileged oppressor class and everyone else.

Whatever the motivations, there is no question that many states and local jurisdictions have tailored their justice systems to serve as lucrative business models for the plaintiffs’ bar. They have pursued approaches that systematically incentivize litigation even in the absence of real injury, expand the scope of liability regardless of culpability, and eliminate constraints against excessive and improperly motivated verdicts. The American Tort Reform Association aptly describes these aggressively pro-plaintiff jurisdictions, states such as California, New York, and Louisiana, as “judicial hellholes” where, for defendants, the system is capricious and rife with abuse.

The results that flow from these skewed regimes are predictable: the proliferation of ill-founded lawsuits and the increasing frequency of excessive verdicts. Examples abound of these so-called “nuclear” verdicts, those exceeding $10 million, and “thermonuclear” verdicts, those exceeding $100 million. A Pennsylvania jury recently ordered Exxon Mobil to pay $725.5 million to an auto mechanic who attributed his leukemia to being exposed to the company’s products while working at a gas station for five years. This May, a Houston jury awarded $640 million to the family of a construction worker killed in a crane accident. Once a justice system starts tolerating excessive verdicts, they inevitably snowball.

According to the research firm Marathon Strategies, the number of “nuclear” verdicts nationwide has more than doubled in the past two years, from 66 to 135, the number of “thermonuclear” verdicts has almost doubled in just one year, from 27 to 49, and the number of verdicts over $1 billion jumped from two to five.

This system of “jackpot justice” imposes enormous costs on society generally. The vast sums paid into this system, including the costs of litigation and excessive judgments, are borne ultimately by consumers, households, and businesses in the increased cost of living, including insurance coverage. A Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform study found that the total costs and compensation paid into the U.S. tort system reached over $529 billion in 2022, equivalent to 2.1% of GDP.  This amounts to a hidden tax burden averaging over $4,200 per U.S. household.

While there are many steps that must be taken to address current abuses, several reforms should be prioritized.

First, one of the main drivers of nuclear verdicts is juries that are permitted to go well beyond economic loss in awarding compensatory damages, and add all manner of alleged intangible, noneconomic harm, such as pain and mental distress. These noneconomic awards typically make up the bulk of damages in nuclear verdict cases. Stopping abuse requires putting reasonable restrictions on noneconomic damages.

For the same reason, reasonable limits should be placed on punitive damages, which are meant to be available when a jury finds that the wrongful act that injured the plaintiff was exceptionally egregious and that punitive action is needed to deter such conduct in the future. But even when used on that basis, experience shows that all too often juries abuse punitive damages and impose stratospheric penalties untethered to a legitimate deterrence purpose.

Finally, plaintiffs’ lawyers’ exploitative advertising often targets vulnerable groups. Just as in lotteries, where ticket sales are driven by the size of the jackpot rather than the probabilities of winning, these ads often use the prospect of massive payouts to enlist clients while rarely mentioning the delays and risks involved in litigation and how little the claimants actually receive after contingency fees and litigation costs are deducted. Nor do they advise hypothetical claimants with legitimate claims that, by negotiating early settlements, they may end up with sufficient compensation without the delay, costs, and risks of litigation.

120 CRIMINAL CASES DISMISSED IN MASSACHUSETTS OVER ATTORNEY PAY DISPUTE

A recent survey reported that 67% of respondents believe state and federal lawmakers should restrict lawyer advertising to prevent misleading practices and reduce the number of lawsuits filed. A number of states have adopted laws that prohibit misleading practices in lawsuit advertisements highlighting monetary awards. These restrictions are needed nationwide.

Reforms such as these aren’t about denying victims their day in court, but about restoring balance. We need meaningful reforms rooted in a renewed commitment to the system’s original purpose: delivering justice, not jackpots.

William P. Barr served as U.S. attorney general under Presidents George H.W. Bush (1991–1993) and Donald Trump (2019–2020).