Judge relying wholly on AI in order is covered by judicial immunity, court rules
A U.S. federal court has ruled that a judge is protected by judicial immunity even if they rely entirely on artificial intelligence to issue a ruling. The court determined that the act of issuing a decision remains a judicial function regardless of the tools used.
Why it matters
This sets a significant legal precedent regarding the intersection of AI automation and judicial accountability.
From Wednesday's decision in Phillips v. Parlade , by Judge Gloria Navarro (D. Nev.), where a litigant sued a state court judge in his case:
Plaintiff ... argu[es] that judicial immunity does not apply in this matter because Defendant unlawfully delegated her official decision-making duties when she relied wholly on artificial intelligence to issue a judicial ruling, without any discretionary human thought, such that her actions cannot be considered a "judicial act." Plaintiff further argues that because Defendant delegated 100% of her decision-making duties, the rulings were in clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in