Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Sunday cautioned about the future of federal courts, warning of the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) in deciding cases and other important legal matters.
His remarks, published in the federal attorney general’s year-end annual report, did not address current controversies surrounding his court, including calls for greater transparency and ethics reforms to constrain judges. Not yet.
Roberts noted that the legal profession as a whole is “notoriously averse to change” and urged courts to take a slow approach when adopting new technology.
“It’s clear that AI has tremendous potential to dramatically increase access to critical information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike,” he said. “But it is clear that it risks violating privacy rights and dehumanizing the law.”
Top Republican talks AI arms race: “Machines will compete with each other”
Street view of the Supreme Court building. (Stephanie Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
“However, the use of AI requires caution and humility,” he added. “As 2023 draws to a close with breathless predictions about the future of artificial intelligence, some may wonder if judges will soon become obsolete. We believe that is not the case. We are confident, but equally confident that technological change will continue to transform the way we work.”
Mr. Roberts also summarized the work of the nation’s 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and his own Supreme Court. Previous year-end reports focused on court security, judge salaries, caseloads and budget increases.
Although the chief justice’s predictions for the future did not include the number of cases in his court, he and his colleagues are poised to take on several political issues in the new year, many of which include former President Donald Trump. The focus was on his legal issues and re-election efforts.
Watchdog warns that some federal agencies are falling behind on AI requirements
Chief Justice John Roberts attends the State of the Union address. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc, via Getty Images)
election exam
The Supreme Court has been grappling with its share of electoral battles for decades—remember Bush v. Gore from nearly a quarter-century ago? –But in 2024, that judicial drama will seem quaint by comparison.
The first question is whether states can remove Trump’s name from their primary and general election ballots. The Colorado Supreme Court said yes, and now the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to determine the scope of the 14th Amendment’s provision, which provides for removal from public office of persons “engaged in insurrection.”
State courts across the country are considering whether Trump’s role in 2020 election interference and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot should disqualify him from seeking reelection.
The justices are being asked to make a swift decision by mid-February or early March, when 16 states hold their “Super Tuesday” primaries.
In his leadership role as a “leading voice in equality,” Roberts, 68, will decide what voting challenges the court will hear and ultimately decide, perhaps as the deciding vote. He is likely to be the central figure in organizing the voting dispute.
Despite a 6-3 conservative majority, the chief justice has often sought to play a centrist role, seeking a less-is-best approach, frustrating his more right-wing colleagues. It’s here.
But even with its reluctance to distance itself from the fray, the court seems likely to become embroiled in election-related disputes.
“Given the number of election disputes that may arise in the future, many of which could move very quickly, it remains to be seen how the courts will respond,” said Brianne Golod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. It will be very important to see.” “In some cases, the Supreme Court may have to become involved in election cases because there are some voting rights and election cases that the justices need to resolve on the merits.”
The high court is already considering rezoning a challenge by civil rights groups to the Republican-leaning state’s voting boundaries.
That includes South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, which the Republican-led Legislature claims has created a racial gerrymander. A verdict is expected in spring 2024.
The high court could also be asked to consider emergency appeals over restrictions on mail-in voting, provisional voting deadlines, voting hours and electors.
Weeks before President Trump was first impeached by the House in 2019, Roberts sought to downplay the court’s consideration of partisan political controversy.
“When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in that light,” Roberts said at the time. “That is not how our courts function, and the outcome of our cases does not suggest otherwise.”
However, the court’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of law and the Constitution continues to decline to record lows.
A June Fox News poll found that only 48% of those surveyed had confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 83% just six years ago.
Commerce Secretary bans NVIDIA AI chips designed to circumvent restrictions
Former President Donald Trump on the campaign trail. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Trump term?
Donald Trump faces separate criminal charges in four jurisdictions in 2024. The two federal lawsuits allege document fraud and 2020 election interference. Two state lawsuits have been filed in Georgia over interference in the 2020 election, and in New York over hush money payments to porn stars.
The possibility of multiple criminal convictions for the former president and leading Republican candidate, whether confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court or not, could dominate an already heated race.
The former president has filed various motions in each case, asking for charges to be dropped, proceedings to be delayed, and permission to speak publicly about what he sees as politically motivated prosecutions.
The Supreme Court recently refused to expedite another appeal in President Trump’s criminal trial, which is scheduled to begin the day before “Super Tuesday.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith is disputing Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the 2020 election interference case. The former president said the charges amounted to a “partisan witch hunt.”
The justices have not weighed in on the dispute so far, but could return as soon as later this winter after a federal appeals court rules on the merits in the coming weeks.
But the justices will decide this term whether some of the defendants in the January 6th Capitol riot can challenge their convictions on charges of “unauthorized” obstruction of an “official proceeding.” Oral arguments could be held in February or March.
More than 300 people are facing similar obstruction laws for allegedly trying to block Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
The former president faces similar obstruction charges in his case, and the high court’s decision could affect Trump’s legal defense in the special counsel’s case and the timing of his trial.
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of Biden’s AI executive order
Supreme Court justices pose for official photos at the Supreme Court. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
think ahead
In the short term, the Supreme Court, with its strong conservative majority, will hear arguments and rule on several hot topics in the coming months, including:
– Abortion, and access to mifepristone, a drug commonly used to end pregnancies.
– Efforts to significantly curtail executive power and the ability of federal agencies to interpret and enforce “vague” policies enacted by Congress.
– Whether social media and technology companies, on their own or with the help of governments, can curb or prevent users from posting misinformation.
– Gun Rights and Federal Prohibition on Possession of Firearms by Persons Subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders
Last month, the court enacted a new “code of conduct” outside the courtroom. It is a code of ethics that clarifies how judges deal with conflicts of interest, case cancellations, activities and finances in which they can participate outside of court.
The case follows months of revelations that some judges, particularly Clarence Thomas, failed to accurately report gifts and other financial interests on required financial disclosure reports. Ta.
In a statement, the court acknowledged that in the absence of binding ethical rules, some believe that judges “consider themselves not to be bound by any ethical rules.” .
“To dispel this misconception, we issue this Code. This Code is primarily a codification of the principles that we have long considered to govern our behavior. .”
All of this reflects the delicate balance that the chief justice will navigate in a presidential election year.
The nine members are not immune to the unprecedented criticism of the High Court’s work both inside and outside the court.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said this fall that “a storm is brewing not only in American politics but throughout the world.” “I think as judges and as a judicial system, we need to try to be a little more calm in the midst of the storm.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Some court observers agree that the courts may struggle in the short term to maintain their institutional legitimacy and public trust, but time may be on their side. There are some too.
“Courts, by their very nature, tend to look at things over the long term,” said Thomas Dupree, a former senior Justice Department official who has argued cases before the Supreme Court. “Even if I disagree with the outcome of a particular case, I have never had any doubt that they are doing everything in their power to faithfully apply the law and the U.S. Constitution to achieve the right outcome.” there is no.”
