Navigating an Overburdened Courtroom: How Inconsistent Rules,Shadow Procedures,and Social Capital Disadvantage Tenants in Eviction Court

Abstract

Landlords and tenants in eviction court navigate a complex legal and administrative process. Eviction courts are overburdened and under pressure to process enormous numbers of cases each day. From inside one such courtroom, we draw on in-depth ethnographic observations and administrative court records from before the pandemic to examine how everyday practices shape courtroom experiences for tenants and landlords. From the moment they enter the courtroom, tenants encounter unwritten rules and informal processes that prove difficult to navigate. Confusing and inconsistently applied rules leave unrepresented tenants at a disadvantage relative to landlords, who are much more likely to have legal counsel. Courtroom actors rely on shadow procedures such as settlement agreements to save time and improve courtroom efficiency, which reinforce power asymmetries between landlords and tenants. While landlords and their attorneys rely on their familiarity with courtroom actors to garner systematic advantages, tenants lack these social capital resources. Our theory of systematic disadvantage shows how these rules, practices, and procedures come together in an overburdened courtroom to amplify the disadvantages faced by tenants at risk of an eviction.