The Federal judicial system is beset by problems in three basic areas: time, economy, and quality of justice. The crisis in the Federal courts is essentially a resource allocation question, with five possible responses. The first response -- expanding the Federal judiciary -- would impair the high quality of justice. A second response would be to provide substitutes for the scarce resource by redirecting litigation to alternative dispute resolution institutions. To this end, Congress should abolish Federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, strengthen the Federal magistrate system, and seriously examine arbitration legislation through the hearing process. A third possible response is conservation of the resource by eliminating inefficiencies or by simplifying procedures and threshold barriers, particularly by abolishing mandatory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. A fourth response would be rationing the resource by limiting availability to all litigants or by barring access altogether for specific groups of individuals. However, justice cannot be rationed, and Congress should enact legislation to reopen courthouse doors to certain kinds of cases. A final possible response is avoidance of the resource entirely. When whole groups of people avoid the courts because of the high cost, justice is unequal. The Legal Services Corporation and LEAA have both tried to deal with this problem. In addition, Congress has developed legislation to encourage experimentation with various dispute resolution procedures. The legal profession can help by giving Congress advice and an overview of the system. A total of 168 footnotes are supplied.