I don't know exactly, because critical theorists themselves said they didn't know and you couldn't know either, until the process was done and then you could evaluate it and say, "Oh, yes, we accomplished our emancipatory revolution!"

Seriously. Horkheimer argues that you cannot evaluate a critical theory until it succeeds.

Delado and Stefancic have a section where they imagine what it looks like when CRT replaces the liberal order, but they don't really go into enough detail to get a full picture; mostly they just say if it doesn't happen it will be because of bigotry or misinformation. They're very proud of the degree to which narrative, as opposed to, say, evidence, has made inroads into legal decisionmaking, and challenging the ideal of the neutrality of the law is a tenet. So my first guess would be that the point of the legal system would be to affirm the lived truth of the oppressed and punish the oppressor, regardless of any inconvenient facts such as whether the oppressor was actually doing any oppressing. I'm not really sure.