Quick Facts:
A: Court systems are frequentlyare treated as administrative infrastructure rather than rights-critical systems, leaving procurement and governance largely unchecked.
A: Judges, law enforcement, and litigants rely on records to make decisions. If those records are unreliable, due process is compromised at every stage.
A: Identity verification, access controls, confidentiality protections, abuse detection, and independent oversight are baseline requirements.
Michigan’s courts increasingly operate through digital systems that few outside the judiciary ever see and even fewer oversee. These platforms quietly determine who can file, who is notified, what is visible, and what judges rely on as fact.
When court technology fails, the consequences are not technical. They are constitutional.
This final installment examines why court technology routinely avoids meaningful legislative scrutiny, how unreliable court records undermine due process, and what standards a safe filing system must meet if courts are to function as courts rather than unchecked digital intake portals.
- Read Part 1: Michigan’s MiFile System Fails Court Rules by Design: A Safety and Due Process Audit
- Read Part 2: Who is Accountable for MiFile? Vendor Oversight Failures in Michigan’s Court Technology
1. Why Court Technology Escapes Oversight
Court technology occupies a gray zone. It is not traditionally regulated like criminal procedure, evidence rules, or sentencing statutes. Instead, it is often treated almost entirely as an after thought, or an internal administrative matter.
That framing is outdated. Modern court platforms:
- determine access to justice
- mediate adversarial contact
- control confidentiality
- generate the official record
But shockingly, legislative oversight remains minimal. Procurement decisions are typically delegated to court administrative bodies, with limited public reporting, no routine performance hearings, and no statutory technology standards comparable to those imposed on law enforcement databases or voter systems.
The result is predictable. Once a system is live, scrutiny fades, even as reliance deepens.
2. Court Records Are Only as Trustworthy as the Systems That Create Them
Due process depends on reliable records. Judges rely on filings to:
- issue protection orders
- schedule hearings
- determine custody
- impose sanctions
- authorize enforcement
But when a system allows:
- unverified identities
- unauthorized access
- standing after the fact
- exposure of nonpublic proceedings
the integrity of the record itself is compromised, and it leaves far too much room for harm.
This does not at all insinuate or require malicious intent; a structurally permissive system produces unreliable records simply by operating as designed.
Once trust in the record erodes, downstream decisions are affected. Law enforcement acts on flawed information. Litigants are forced to respond to filings that should never have existed. Courts spend time correcting preventable errors instead of adjudicating disputes.
And once again, we run into our old friend, procedural drift.
3. Why “Fix It Later” Does Not Work in Court Systems
In other sectors, errors can be patched. In courts, damage often occurs before correction is possible. A filing triggers consequences immediately:
- service
- reputational harm
- emotional distress
- enforcement action
Even if a judge later dismisses a filing, the harm is already done; there is no possible way to turn back the clock. Court technology must therefore be preventive, not reactive.
Systems designed around cleanup rather than containment fail to account for how legal power actually operates.
4. What a Safe Court Filing System Must Require
(And these have to be the Baseline standards, not just aspirational goals)
A court filing system handling sensitive and adversarial matters should meet, at minimum, the following standards.
Identity Assurance
- Identity verification proportional to the legal impact of filings
- Multi factor authentication
- Controls on name changes and duplicate identities
Standing and Role Controls
- Verification before granting party status
- Role based permissions tied to case type
- Special restrictions for PPO, juvenile, and mental health matters
Confidentiality by Design
- Nonpublic cases must be undiscoverable to unauthorized users
- Metadata protection, not just name redaction
- Default privacy, not opt in privacy
Abuse Prevention and Detection
- Pattern monitoring for repetitive or coercive filings
- Clear abuse reporting mechanisms
- Administrative intervention authority
Transparency and Oversight
- Independent audits of court technology systems
- Public reporting of security and governance findings
- Legislative review proportional to system impact
These are not novel requirements. They are already standard in other rights critical systems. Courts have simply been excluded from that conversation for too long.
5. Legislative Oversight Is Not Interference. It Is Safeguarding.
Oversight does not mean micromanaging judicial decision making by any stretch. It means ensuring the infrastructure supporting those decisions is sound. When legislatures decline to set minimum standards for court technology, they do not preserve judicial independence. They abdicate responsibility for protecting the public.
Court technology is now inseparable from court function. Treating it as a background administrative detail is no longer defensible.
Why This Matters
Michigan’s courts are not unique. But MiFile illustrates what happens when digital systems outpace governance and thoughtful technological safeguards.
When court technology:
- escapes oversight
- produces unreliable records
- enables procedural abuse and harm
the justice system quietly shifts away from fairness and toward automation without accountability. That is by no means modernization, rather it is a distinct erosion in safety and system security on multiple fronts.
If courts expect the public to trust digital justice, they must first ensure that the systems delivering it even deserve that trust.
