A review of the history of court consolidation concludes that although trial court consolidation has been implemented in some highly visible States, it has not generated significant momentum. The States that have fully consolidated their trial courts remain in a minority, and very few have done so in the past 20 years. A review of the court-consolidation literature over the past two decades shows that although it is not extensive, it reflects a shift from formal constitutional and statutory changes in trial court structure to an examination of consolidation as an element of trial court operations. This article highlights two studies; one is a comprehensive and theoretically sophisticated study of court unification reforms under the direction of Thomas A. Henderson, and the other is a Canadian study of how trial court consolidation worked in Illinois, South Dakota, and Minnesota. Another section of this article discusses the politics of consolidation. It notes that the political "battle lines" are traditionally drawn between general jurisdiction judges opposed to consolidation and limited jurisdiction judges who favor it. The article also addresses the politics of evaluating court consolidation projects, with attention to the common criticisms of the opponents of consolidation when evaluations of consolidation are positive. In assessing the future of court consolidation, the article concludes that given the continuing conflict over trial court consolidation and the continuing variety of approaches to and outcomes of consolidation, other alternatives for increasing court efficiency and effectiveness may be forged. Some examples of alternatives are described. 19 notes