How federal appellate courts unilaterally and without authority transformed themselves into arbitration panels

When a person files a lawsuit, it usually means that the alternative means of dispute resolution did not work.

Litigation is not a fun activity.   It is stressful,  costly and time-consuming.

Yet,  when a person files a lawsuit,  a person expects from the judiciary diligent review of his or her case on equal grounds with other litigants.

That is called "equal justice for all" and is guaranteed by the Equal protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which every judge in the United States takes an oath to uphold as a condition of taking that judicial office.

Yet, an interesting metamorphosis happens to the judges' readiness to uphold the concept of equal justice for all when a judge is faced with increasing caseloads.

Now,  let's agree on some common premises.

Population of the United States increases.

The number of court cases increases.

The number of federal judges did not increase in proportion with the increase of cases filed and litigated.

There is a physiological limit as to human attention span and ability of any human for intense intellectual work per day.Federal judges are usually advanced in years, which makes their ability for strenuous intellectual work and speedy, efficient and diligent resolution of court cases suspect, no matter how many clerks they employ.
Reports constantly appear that the rule that federal judges serve while on good behavior simply does not work, because it does not cover aging and aging-specific health problems.  Senility among federal judges is a growing concern.  Some federal judges serve into their 80s and even 90s.  Senior judges handle 15% of the caseload of federal courts.

Does all of the above justify unilateral classification of cases by judges into the "worthy" track where full review and analysis is conducted and full opinions are issued and punished and the "unworthy" track where a less-than-diligent review of cases is warranted, according to judges' absolute discretion?

Not if the constitutional concept of access to courts,  due process of law,  equal prison of law and for fair, competent and impartial judicial review is followed.

If there is the same number of judges for increasing number of cases,  the concept of equal protection of law means simply that it will take longer for any given case to be reviewed,  not that the judge is somehow allowed to cut corners and provide a less than diligent review because he is so busy.

Yet, cutting corners is exactly what federal appellate courts are doing by designating over 80% of appellate cases (according to research of Erica S. Weisgerber, footnote 7 p. 624 and accompanying text), without notifying appellants or giving them an opportunity to object before it is too late, for a less than diligent review and production of the so-caller "unpublished opinions" where the courts hardly provide any explanations for their decisions,  finally snaping appellants' lives and practically tarot 80% of appeals as a total waste of time and money,  all in the name of the claimed judicial efficiency, meaning expediency that sacrifices diligence or fairness.

It is appalling that, without notice or opportunity to be heard,  for the courts' own convenience,  over 80% of appellants in federal appellate courts ate denied diligent appellate review,  while the remaining 20% or less of appellants are given such review,  for unlearn reasons,  based on the judges' sole and absolute discretion which is practically unreviewable by any other court.

When federal appellate courts refuse to explain over 80% of their decisions,  they are no different from arbitration.   Yet,  arbitration is not what the appella ts who are denied proper review chose.

The difference between the court of law and arbitration is that,  while arbitration is also binding,  the arbitrator is not required to cite the law or provide his or her analysis or reasoning for the decision. That is exactly what federal appellate courts are doing with their "unpublished opinions".

Yet, arbitration is voluntary, and if litigants chose judicial review in federal courts as of right,  they cannot be forced into an arbitration or arbitration-like review without their knowledge or consent, which is what is happening now in federal appellate courts.

My legal opinion is that such a practice is unconstitutional and invalidates federal appellate courts as entities, where such courts, for their own convenience' sake, unilaterally, voluntarily and without authority started to act as arbitrators and not courts in the overwhelming majority of cases.