The Fall of ADR: How the Supreme Court's 2025 Rulings Exposed the Unconstitutional Rise of Shadow Justice

Introduction

On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court issued two rulings that will reverberate through every courthouse in America: Trump v. J.G.G. and Kennedy v. Braidwood. These decisions have not only upended the legal foundations of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) — they’ve exposed how decades of unconstitutional judicial outsourcing have quietly dismantled due process in state courts.

With a single word — “ONLY” — the Court made it crystal clear: only Article III courts and only constitutionally appointed officers may issue legally binding decisions. ADR as we’ve known it — particularly in family and administrative courts — is no longer legally viable. What follows is a reckoning decades in the making.

---

Historical Context: How ADR Became a Trojan Horse

ADR was sold as a solution to bloated dockets and high legal costs. But behind the efficiency pitch was something far more troubling: a parallel legal system, funded by federal dollars, operating outside the Constitution.

Before 1980, ADR use in courts was negligible. Then came Title IV-D funding, DOJ pilot programs, and federal grants encouraging mediation, arbitration, and quasi-judicial diversion programs. States and courts jumped at the money, creating court-annexed ADR schemes that functioned without juries, judicial oversight, or accountability.

In some jurisdictions, especially family courts, litigants were forced into ADR where parenting plans, child support, and custody were “decided” by mediators, commissioners, or evaluators — none of whom were Article III judges or had any constitutional authority.

As the below chart shows, ADR usage climbed steadily, peaking at 70% of state court actions by 2025, before falling off a cliff after the Court’s rulings:

Chart Source: Grok / Thunder Report

---

The 2025 Rulings: Back to the Constitution

Trump v. J.G.G. held that only an Article III court — one created under the U.S. Constitution with lifetime-appointed judges — can render a final judgment on matters involving life, liberty, or property. This shut the door on state or administrative bodies making binding decisions without actual judicial authority.

Kennedy v. Braidwood doubled down, declaring that even when Congress delegates power, only constitutionally appointed officers (under Article II) can wield it in a binding manner. ADR facilitators, administrative law judges, and family court commissioners do not meet this threshold.

Together, these rulings obliterate the legal foundation for ADR rulings that have become commonplace in custody disputes, CPS hearings, zoning cases, and more. Millions of decisions — from parenting plans to child removals — may now be constitutionally invalid.

---

The Fallout: A Legal Crisis in the Making

State courts now face a three-headed crisis:

1. Backlogs and Bottlenecks
   With ADR panels stripped of authority, every binding decision must now flow through a constitutionally valid judge. Expect delays, backlogs, and chaos as state courts scramble to comply.

2. Litigation Tsunami
   Parents, property owners, and litigants of all stripes will be challenging prior ADR rulings as void ab initio. This includes past custody decisions, administrative findings, and default orders.

3. Costly Overhaul
   States must now expand judicial benches, rework family court protocols, and possibly refund federal ADR grants — all while facing legal challenges for due process violations under color of law.

Family courts will be hit hardest. ADR has long been a tool used to coerce settlements, silence parents, and bypass due process. Now those same processes face exposure and legal challenge under the renewed lens of the Constitution.

---

Conclusion: A New Era of Accountability

The era of rubber-stamped “justice” through ADR is over. The Supreme Court has spoken — and it sided with the Constitution. For decades, states chased federal dollars and convenience at the expense of civil liberties. But the chickens have come home to roost.

Now begins the long road to restoring due process, judicial legitimacy, and constitutional guardrails in America’s courtrooms. That’s not just a legal challenge — it’s a national reckoning.