Courts use Common Law, which has led to unfair marginalization and discrimination, proving it to be not a proper method for courts to use.

Civil law is a comprehensive, codified set of legal statutes created by legislators. A civil system clearly defines the cases that can be brought to court, the procedures for handling claims, and the punishment for an offense. Judicial authorities use the conditions in the applicable civil code to evaluate the facts of each case and make legislative decisions. While civil law is regularly updated, the goal of standardized codes is to create order and reduce biased systems in which laws are applied differently from case to case.

Common law draws from institutionalized opinions and interpretations from judicial authorities and public juries. Similar to civil law, the goal of common law is to establish consistent outcomes by applying the same standards of interpretation. In some instances, precedent depends on the case-by-case traditions of individual jurisdictions. As a result, elements of common law may differ between districts.

As judges present the precedents which apply to a case, they can significantly influence the criteria that a jury uses to interpret a case. Historically, the traditions of common law have led to unfair marginalization or disempowerment of certain groups. Whether they are outdated or biased, past decisions continue to shape future rulings until societal changes prompt a judicial body to overturn the precedent.

This system makes it difficult for marginalized parties to pursue favorable rulings until popular thought or civil legislation changes the interpretation of common law. Feminists in the 19th and early 20th centuries who fought for women's rights often faced such difficulties. For example, in England, common law as late as the 1970s held that, when couples divorced, fathers—rather than mothers—were entitled to custody of the children, a bias that in effect kept women trapped in marriages.