Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Bill is filed in its originating chamber and assigned a number.
Filed in the Senate.
Next: In Committee
Members of the committee(s) the bill was referred to
Requires research and oversight of artificial intelligence systems used in courts.
The problem
Courts increasingly use AI systems to help with decisions, but there's little transparency or study of how well these systems work or if they're fair to everyone.
The proposal
The bill establishes requirements for studying AI in courts, creating oversight mechanisms, and ensuring courts disclose when and how they use artificial intelligence.
The impact
Judges, defendants, lawyers, and the public would see more information about AI use in courts. Courts would need to conduct and publish research on AI fairness.
Research and oversight can identify if AI systems treat people differently based on race, gender, or other factors. This helps ensure everyone gets fair treatment in the justice system.
Requiring courts to disclose AI use helps defendants and the public understand how decisions are made. People have the right to know what technology affects their cases.
Ongoing research can catch errors or biases in AI systems before they harm many people. This allows courts to fix problems quickly.
Oversight ensures AI doesn't replace human judgment unfairly or prevent defendants from challenging decisions. It protects legal rights built into the justice system.
Courts would need funding for research, oversight staff, and new reporting systems. This could strain already tight court budgets.
Additional research requirements and oversight processes might take time, potentially delaying justice for people waiting for court decisions.
Without clear details in the bill, courts may struggle to understand exactly what research and oversight are required, leading to confusion.
Strict oversight might make courts avoid helpful AI tools entirely, even ones that work well and could improve efficiency.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
HR 10389
Survivor’s Voice Protection Act
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.