Grassley Calls on the Federal Judiciary to Formally Regulate AI Use

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today spoke on the Senate floor to discuss his oversight of federal judges' Artificial Intelligence (AI) use. Grassley recently exposed two federal judges whose court staff used AI to draft inaccurate court orders that the judges approved.

During his floor speech, Grassley called on every federal judge, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Judicial Conference to develop formal measures and meaningful guidance to prevent future AI misuse. Grassley urged the judiciary to treat the recent misuse of AI as a wake-up call, and warned his oversight would continue.

VIDEO

I rise to address my recent oversight related to our nation's federal courts, and to share some of my recent findings.

This month, I sent letters to a pair of federal judges regarding their suspected use of generative Artificial Intelligence - AI - in published court orders.

The two judges issued orders that were wrought with serious, inexplicable errors that were of great concern to the litigants, to the public and to me.

One judge, sitting in the Southern District of Mississippi, issued an order that named plaintiffs and defendants who were not even parties to the case.

It misquoted statutory text. It erroneously cited evidence that didn't exist in the record. And it referred to sworn declarations by people who had not appeared anywhere in the case.

I've never seen or heard of anything like this from a federal court.

The other judge, sitting in the District of New Jersey, issued an order with fake quotes and misstatements about case law.

The order even falsely attributed quotations to the defendants that apparently were never made.

Errors like these are unfathomable.

Both judges' errors are obviously reckless and unacceptable. But it gets worse.

When these flagrant mistakes were brought to the courts' attention by counsel in the cases, both judges attempted to minimize their faults. One even referred to the errors as "clerical."

Both judges removed their orders from the docket and the public record without explanation.

This lack of transparency is breathtaking.

The judges' refusal to accept responsibility for their actions eroded public confidence in the competency and fairness of the judiciary.

When litigants or their attorneys misuse artificial intelligence like this, or file sloppy briefs with incorrect citations and falsehoods, they are rightly held accountable.

Just recently we've seen attorneys sanctioned, fined, removed from cases and even referred for professional discipline or disbarment for this kind of conduct.

In fact, in a case assigned to one of these judges, a magistrate judge publicly chastised a counsel for using artificial intelligence in a brief.

Apparently, some judges think accountability runs only one way. But they are wrong.

As the Fifth Circuit recently explained, "The use of AI or other technology does not excuse carelessness or failure to follow professional standards."

That's true for every officer of a federal court - attorney and judge alike.

To their credit, these two judges responded to my letters and explained that they're taking measures to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

Each acknowledged that the errors in their orders arose from the misuse of AI by staff in their chambers.

One judge blamed a law student intern and the other blamed a law clerk for generating the errors.

This helps explain how it happened, but it ultimately doesn't matter.

A lawyer can't excuse an error-ridden brief by blaming a paralegal or junior associate.

Attorneys' names go on their filings, just as judges' names go on their orders.

The judges issue orders in their own names that determine the rights of the parties before them.

The buck stops with them.

It's bad enough that a federal court order could misstate and pervert the law to the degree we saw in these two instances.

But I'm concerned that these now-public blunders arose in cases represented by sophisticated parties who had the resources and legal talent to push back.

I fear that if this same thing happened to an indigent party or a pro se litigant, the truth may never have come to light.

I cannot and will not stand for that.

All litigants are owed a fair shake in court.

Our federal courts must hold themselves to the highest standards. Our Constitution depends on it. Justice requires it. Americans deserve better from their judges.

To be clear: I appreciate these two judges finally accepting responsibility.

And I believe them when they say that they're deploying measures to prevent the same mistakes from happening again.

But this should be a lesson to the entire bench and bar.

AI is a powerful - and potentially dangerous - resource.

Although it may have some role in preliminary legal research, it cannot and must not be a substitute for legal judgment.

The Senate confirms federal judges - not computer software - to perform the duties mandated under Article III.

As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'm committed to safeguarding litigants' rights and ensuring that every party in federal court receives fair treatment and careful review by Article III judges.

I call on every judge in America to take this issue seriously and formalize measures to prevent the misuse of AI in their chambers.

I also call on the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Judicial Conference to quickly develop decisive and meaningful guidance on the use of AI by the judiciary.

In the wake of my oversight, Judge Cronan in the Southern District of New York implemented a rule in his courtroom to ensure the accuracy of filings.

He requires attorneys to disclose any AI use and to certify that he or she "personally reviewed the filing for accuracy."

I applaud him for taking this issue seriously, and I encourage other members of the bench to consider similar rules, and to hold themselves to the same standard that they require of litigants in their courts.

I'm hopeful that these two unfortunate episodes will serve as a wake-up call across the federal judiciary, but if it isn't, I'm here today to give a warning.

I'm watching.

All of Congress is now watching.

If this issue doesn't get fixed by the Judiciary, we'll step in to protect the rights of American litigants using the powers available to Congress.

-30-

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Post