AI tools drafting court rulings in Los Angeles threaten judicial independence and constitutional due process, risking biased decisions that undermine American justice.
Story Highlights
- Los Angeles Superior Court pilots “Learned Hand” AI to generate draft rulings, mimicking judges’ styles amid massive caseload backlogs.
- Federal judges already issued error-filled AI-assisted orders, prompting Senate Chairman Chuck Grassley to demand accountability.
- Mandatory human review exists, but critics warn AI biases could predispose judges, eroding impartial verdicts central to conservative values of fair trials.
- Over 60% of federal judges use AI, signaling rapid expansion despite risks to public trust in overburdened courts.
Los Angeles Launches AI Pilot for Judicial Drafts
Los Angeles County Superior Court initiated a pilot program in early 2026 using the AI tool Learned Hand. This system summarizes legal filings, analyzes motions, and produces draft rulings tailored to individual judges’ writing styles. Court spokesman Rob Oftring Jr. stated the tool handles heavy civil caseloads, targeting repetitive tasks like summary judgment motions. Officials compare it to assistance from law clerks, with judges required to review and edit all outputs before final adoption. The program aims to alleviate chronic backlogs plaguing large court systems.
Federal Precedents Reveal AI Errors and Oversight Failures
U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate in Mississippi admitted his law clerk used Perplexity AI as a drafting assistant, resulting in a July 2025 order with factual errors. The flawed ruling misquoted state law, referenced non-existent cases, and listed incorrect parties. Judge Wingate docketed an un-reviewed draft, later correcting it after lawyers objected. Similarly, Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey released a ChatGPT-assisted draft with inaccuracies due to unauthorized use by an intern. Both judges implemented stricter review policies following scrutiny.
Senate and Bar Leaders Demand Safeguards
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley launched inquiries into these incidents, criticizing errors that undermine the deliberative process. Grassley insists federal courts develop permanent AI guidelines to protect litigants’ rights and judicial integrity. LA County Bar President Nathan Hochman voiced concerns over AI-generated tentative rulings introducing bias, potentially predisposing judges. An anonymous LA judge echoed fears that AI drafts could influence final judgments, despite mandatory edits. Learned Hand CEO Shlomo Klapper promotes the tool as verifiable “co-intelligence” now active in 10 states.
These developments occur as a 2026 Northwestern survey reveals over 60% of federal judges use AI, primarily for research and document review, though only 22% employ it daily or weekly. Courts adopted protocols like Thomson Reuters’ seven-step framework emphasizing human oversight. GenAI excels at summaries but struggles with complex opinions, per judicial experiments. Proponents highlight backlog relief; critics prioritize unbiased human judgment essential to constitutional protections.
Risks to Justice Outweigh Efficiency Gains
Short-term benefits include faster processing of repetitive civil matters, boosting court throughput. Long-term, improving AI could produce near-final drafts, but experts stress it remains no substitute for judicial reasoning. Public trust erodes when errors slip through, as seen in federal cases blocking state laws like Mississippi’s anti-DEI measure. Conservatives wary of government overreach view unchecked AI as a threat to individual liberty and due process under the Constitution. Senate oversight may enforce nationwide standards amid expanding pilots.
Sources:
Los Angeles Courts Pilot AI Tool to Help Judges Draft Rulings
Judging AI: Generative AI in Courts
Grassley Scrutinizes Federal Judges’ Apparent AI Use in Drafting Error-Ridden Rulings
Northwestern Study Finds Significant Number of Federal Judges Are Already Using AI Tools
The Judge’s Guide to AI Adoption Without Compromising Authority
