In recent years, a discourse on ethno-religious minorities emerged, attesting that certain communities are involved in processes of dispute resolution. According to the alarming arguments from judicial and law enforcement institutions they pose a threat to the fundamental principles of public law. This paper will challenge this discourse on two levels: empirical and normative. First, I will present some empirical findings based on my own ethnographic research on Yazidis as well as on other socio-legal studies that challenge the common assumption that minorities are involved in institutionalized forms dispute settlements that reach the quality of informal jurisprudence. Second, I intend to challenge the constitutional assumption that the relevant practices of informal justice are unconstitutional at all. I will conclude with the potentials of thinking towards a constitutional doctrine of alternative dispute resolution