How familiar are you with business courts? They may be flying under your radar, but your lives are deeply entangled. Nearly two-thirds of Americans live in a state with a business court. And some workers or consumers in those states—whether they like it or not—could end up having important cases decided by a business court.
That could be a problem, because new research by the People’s Parity Project, or PPP, finds that half the business court judges in the United States are former corporate lawyers. In seven states, more than 90 percent of business court judges are former corporate lawyers. Only a small fraction of these judges have any experience representing workers or consumers in need.
That’s one reason why critics say these courts are perceived as biased in favor of corporations. Though several states are rushing to adopt business court systems, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ended its state’s pilot program last year, after a new progressive majority took office. One justice warned that the program resembled a “two-tiered” court system.
Business courts are often characterized as the ideal venue to settle disputes between businesses or between owners of a business. They’re intended to be quicker and more efficient; the same judges handle the cases from start to finish. Some proponents argue that the faster process makes litigation easier for small businesses, which may lack the resources of larger corporate litigants.
In many states, however, the jurisdiction of business courts extends much further than disputes within or between businesses. Maine has a “business and consumer” court that is staffed by two judges with experience representing corporations and employers, who rule on lawsuits filed by consumers who claimed they were wronged by a corporation’s product or service.
North Carolina’s business courts have very broad jurisdiction. The chief justice only has to designate a case as “complex” to assign it to the court. Recently, these complex cases have included a defamation case, a class action lawsuit by hospital patients over the privacy of their medical records, and the state’s lawsuit against TikTok over whether the app is addictive. The chief justice also assigns North Carolina’s Superior Court judges to the business court; our research found that all nine judges were former corporate attorneys.
Many business courts were explicitly intended to be staffed with lawyers with experience in corporate law. A lawyer who helped design Arizona’s business courts said their intention was to get judges with “strong backgrounds in business litigation”—though they didn’t want the court to be perceived as “pro-business.” Elsewhere, the lawyers who proposed Michigan’s business courts listed one goal as “attracting and retaining businesses.”
PPP’s new report found that 100 percent of business court judges in Arizona, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Tennessee are former corporate lawyers. In Delaware, where the prototype for business courts was created centuries ago, the appellate courts are also dominated by judges who spent their legal careers representing employers and corporations. The state’s “Court of Chancery” and the body of law that it developed is the reason why so many big companies are headquartered in Delaware.
But after Delaware courts ruled to undo billionaire Elon Musk’s lavish compensation package from Tesla, some of those companies began leaving the state. Texas established its own business court, filled it almost entirely with corporate lawyers, and courted companies to reincorporate there. Delaware’s state legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, responded to this so-called “Dexit” by making their laws even friendlier to corporate executives.
Texas explicitly requires business court judges to have experience either representing businesses or serving as a judge in civil court. These judges are also appointed by the governor, even though the state constitution requires that judges be chosen by the voters.
In neighboring Oklahoma, lawmakers also established a business court with appointed judges. But the state Supreme Court struck down that law in 2025, because the Oklahoma Constitution says that judges must stand for election.
Oklahoma’s judges are appointed and then run in “retention elections,” in which voters decide whether to keep them in office. Republican Governor Kevin Stitt signed a bill creating a business court with unelected judgeships. Stitt claimed, “I saw court systems in other states playing politics with people’s businesses.” He also called for judges with “business experience” to fill the courts.
Republican lawmakers don’t want business court judges to be accountable to voters like other judges. In North Carolina, the chief justice has assigned an unelected “special” Superior Court judge, chosen by the legislature, to the state’s business court.
Why do corporations need a separate judiciary, staffed by former corporate lawyers, that is unaccountable to voters? This raises obvious concerns about preferential treatment for corporations. And these concerns have kept some states from adopting business courts.
In July 2025, just a few months after Musk spent tens of millions of dollars in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, the court’s new progressive majority ended its state’s pilot business court program. The program had encountered opposition from judges and attorneys, including a former corporate lawyer who asked, “How does the public not look at this without believing that the court is putting its thumb on the scales of justice in favor of business? ... Why don’t injured parties and those that have been denied their civil rights get the same treatment?”
When the previous conservative majority maintained the pilot program in 2022, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley warned that it was sending a message: “Businesses with large claims deserve special treatment, entitling them access to the most efficient, fair, and cost-effective treatment available in the court system.” She argued that everyone is entitled to the best justice the courts can provide and said that Wisconsin’s judges had no problem handling complex business cases.
Voters in Nevada, which is making a big push for companies to reincorporate there, could soon vote on a constitutional amendment to establish business courts. Lawmakers have passed an amendment creating a court with judges who would stand in retention elections, rather than the nonpartisan, contested elections that other judges endure. They must pass the amendment again before it goes on the ballot for voters to decide.
These states could ultimately regret rushing to adopt business courts. These unelected business court judges may, like the U.S. Supreme Court, start putting corporations over workers, consumers, or concerned shareholders. This is particularly a concern when states, such as North Carolina, confer broader jurisdiction on business courts.
These courts are hearing lawsuits filed by workers or consumers, as well as challenges to crucial state taxes. Voters should demand judges on these courts with diverse experiences. If these courts are hearing cases involving workers, they must include judges who spent their careers doing something besides defending employers.
Research has shown that judges’ backgrounds matter when it comes to how they rule. Our recent report found that judges in Connecticut who previously worked as corporate lawyers or prosecutors were more likely to evict people. Another study found that the same judges are less likely to rule for workers. And a 2022 study found that former public defenders were “less willing to render extremely long sentences tantamount to life in prison.” Professional diversity is important, especially when it comes to judges.
Business court judges shouldn’t be drawn exclusively from the ranks of large, powerful corporate law firms. If that’s what lawmakers really want, they should say that explicitly. And they must ensure that the jurisdiction of these courts is sharply limited and doesn’t sweep in lawsuits involving workers or consumers.
Voters in Nevada and other states where lawmakers are exploring the creation of business courts should take a close look. The public should understand what these judges do and how they’ll be chosen. These courts are sweeping the nation, and we should at least talk about how to do it right—and what the consequences are for getting it wrong.
