Judge accused of relying entirely on AI still protected from lawsuit, US court rules

A US federal court has ruled that a judge accused of relying entirely on AI to make a court decision can still be protected by judicial immunity. This could mean that the judge cannot be sued over the alleged AI use. According to a report by Tom’s Hardware, the decision comes from Phillips v. Parlade, a case decided by US District Judge Gloria Navarro of the District of Nevada. The plaintiff, Phillips, argued that judicial immunity should not protect the state judge because she allegedly handed over her decision-making duties completely to AI.In the lawsuit, Phillips claimed that if the judge had delegated 100% of the decision-making to artificial intelligence, the resulting order could not be considered a judicial act based on the judge's own judgment.He also argued that such complete delegation meant the judge had acted outside her legal jurisdiction, which can be an exception to judicial immunity. Judge Navarro rejected those arguments.US judges generally have broad protection from civil lawsuits over actions taken in their judicial role. That protection can apply even when a judge is accused of making mistakes, acting with bad motives or going beyond their authority.Exceptions exist. That immunity may not apply when the judge acts in total absence of jurisdiction or when the act complained of is not a judicial act.Courts generally consider several factors when deciding whether an action is judicial. These include whether it is a normal part of a judge's duties, whether it happened in chambers, whether it involved a case before the judge and whether the judge was acting in an official capacity.In this case, the federal court found that issuing a decision in a pending case was clearly part of a judge's normal duties. Phillips also did not claim that the decision was made outside the judge's chambers or provide legal support for the argument that AI use placed the judge outside her jurisdiction.As a result, the court concluded that judicial immunity still applied and dismissed the lawsuit.The ruling, however, does not prevent litigants from challenging a judge's actions through other legal channels. According to the report, a person can appeal a decision through the state court system, seek other available legal remedies or file a disciplinary complaint against the judge.The case therefore leaves a key question open: “what legal or ethical rules should apply if a judge actually delegates judicial decision-making to an AI system?,” the report states.