It is not a secret that American judges have very broad judicial immunity. Apparently, even in cases where a state judge is accused of relying entirely on artificial intelligence to make a judicial decision, the judge is still protected from a civil lawsuit by judicial immunity, according to a new U.S. federal court ruling. Interestingly, the ruling does not determine whether the judge actually used AI or whether such use is legally allowed, reports Reason.
The decision comes from Phillips v. Parlade, decided by U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro of the District of Nevada. The plaintiff claimed that judicial immunity should not apply because the state judge allegedly turned over her official decision-making responsibilities completely to AI and issued a ruling without using human judgment at all. According to Phillips, delegating 100% of the decision-making meant that the resulting order could not qualify as a ruling performed by a judge. He also said that such complete delegation placed the rulings outside the judge's jurisdiction, which is a rare case that removes judicial immunity.
Navarro rejected both arguments. Judges are generally shielded from civil liability even when their behavior involves mistakes, malevolence, or actions that exceed their authority. However, that protection does not apply when a judge acts with a complete lack of jurisdiction or when the challenged action is not judicial in character. To determine whether an action is judicial, courts look at whether it is a normal part of a judge’s job, took place in chambers, concerned a case before the judge, and involved the judge acting in an official capacity.
In this case, the issue was a ruling in Phillips's state-court case. Navarro found that producing a decision in a pending case is clearly a part of a judge's regular duties. Phillips also did not claim that the events took place outside the judge's chambers or provide legal support for his argument that using AI put the judge outside her jurisdiction. As a result, the judge remained protected by judicial immunity and the lawsuit had to be dismissed.
Eugene Volokh, who discovered the decision, stresses that the federal court did not determine whether Phillips's allegations were accurate and the judge indeed relied on AI in her decision-making. In fact, this conclusion means that even assuming the state judge had depended entirely on AI, Phillips could not pursue this particular federal lawsuit against her.
However, litigants still have other ways to challenge the judge's actions, Volokh notes. They can appeal the decision in state court, seek other legal remedies, or file a disciplinary complaint against the judge. The court did not rule that judges are legally or ethically allowed to delegate their decisions to AI. It did not even determine whether the judge in this case actually did so. It ruled only that alleged reliance on AI — apparently, even 100% reliance — does not by itself remove judicial immunity and allow the judge to be sued in this federal civil action.
Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
Interestingly, the ruling does not determine whether the judge actually used AI or whether such use is legally allowed, reports Reason.
This is a neat judicial trick that applies to "qualified immunity" more generally.
If a court rules that a defendant is protected by immunity, and then dismisses the case without ruling on whether the conduct was otherwise legal, then it avoids setting a precedent that could be used to override qualified immunity in the future.
can still fire that judge. maybe don't make a ruling that would possibly harm themselves in the future but can at least get rid of the riff raff so such a ruling isn't even needed anyway
my totally uneducated and uniformed opinion anyway.
How is this any different (except for the extreme gravity of the situation) from a student using AI to do its homework??
And as we were taught to believe that Justice is blind, i.e impartial. At least in the olden days...:
"Lady Justice is an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Her attributes are scales, a sword and sometimes a blindfold".Hence: “Justice is blind” means the legal system is objective and unbiased.
But is AI?
How is this any different (except for the extreme gravity of the situation) from a student using AI to do its homework??
And as we were taught to believe that Justice is blind, i.e impartial. At least in the olden days...:
"Lady Justice is an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Her attributes are scales, a sword and sometimes a blindfold".Hence: “Justice is blind” means the legal system is objective and unbiased.
But is AI?
