Taking a cautious look at the future of federal courts, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Sunday warned of the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) in deciding cases and other important legal issues.
His comments came in the year-end annual report issued by the head of the federal judiciary, which made no mention of current controversies surrounding his court, including calls for greater transparency and binding ethics reform for judges.
Noting that the legal profession as a whole is “notoriously resistant to change,” Roberts urged a slow approach when adopting new technologies by courts.
“AI obviously has great potential to dramatically increase access to key information for both lawyers and non-lawyers,” he said. “But equally obviously it runs the risk of invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law.”
“But any use of AI requires caution and humility,” he added. “As 2023 comes to a close with exciting predictions about the future of Artificial Intelligence, some may wonder if judges are about to become obsolete. I am sure not, but I am equally confident that technological changes will continue to transform our work.”
Roberts also summarized the work of the country’s 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and its own Supreme Court.
Previous year-end reports have focused on court security, judge compensation, caseload growth and budgets.
The chief justice’s predictions for the future did not include his own court’s caseload, as he and his colleagues are set to take on several politically charged disputes in the new year, many of them centered on legal issues and former President Donald Trump’s re-election efforts.
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts warned on Sunday about the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) in an election year. Getty Images/iStockphoto
Electoral exams
The Supreme Court has dealt with its share of electoral fights over the decades: remember Bush v. Gore almost a quarter-century ago? – but 2024 promises to make that courtroom drama seem quaint by comparison.
First, it could be whether states can keep Trump’s name off primary and general election ballots. Colorado’s highest court said yes, and the U.S. Supreme Court is now asked to decide the scope of a provision of the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who “engage in insurrection” from holding public office.
State courts across the country are considering whether Trump’s role in the 2020 election interference and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would disqualify him from seeking re-election.
The justices are being asked to decide the matter quickly, either in mid-February or early March, when “Super Tuesday” primaries are held in 16 states.
Chief Justice John Roberts attends the State of the Union address in February. Via REUTERS
In his leadership role as “first among equals,” Roberts, 68, will likely be the key player in framing the election disputes that his court will ultimately hear and decide, perhaps as a swing vote.
Despite a 6-3 conservative majority, the chief justice has often tried to play in the middle, pursuing a “less is better” approach that has frustrated his more right-wing colleagues.
But despite any reluctance to stay out of the race, the court will apparently become embroiled in election-related controversies.
“Given the number of election disputes that could arise, many of them could move very quickly and it will be very important to see what the court does,” said Brianne Gorod, senior staff attorney at the Constitutional Accountability Center. “Sometimes the Supreme Court has no choice but to get involved in election cases, because there are some voting rights and election cases that the justices must resolve on the merits.”
The high court is already considering redistricting challenges to voting boundaries in Republican-leaning states, brought by civil rights groups.
That includes South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District and claims the Republican-led legislature created a racial gerrymander. A ruling is expected in spring 2024.
The high court could also be asked to weigh in on emergency appeals over mail-in voting restrictions, deadlines for provisional ballots, voting hours, the Electoral College and more.
Just weeks before President Trump’s first House impeachment trial in 2019, Roberts sought to downplay his court’s consideration of partisan political disputes.
“When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms,” Roberts said at the time. “This is not how we operate in court and the results of our cases do not suggest otherwise.”
But the court’s reputation as a fair arbiter of the law and the Constitution has continued to erode to historic lows.
A Fox News poll in June found that only 48% of respondents had confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 83% just six years ago.
Trump’s term?
Donald Trump faces separate criminal proceedings in four jurisdictions in 2024: two federal cases for mishandling of documents and interference in the 2020 election; and two state cases in Georgia for interference in the 2020 election and in New York for hush money payments to a porn star.
The prospect of a former president and prominent Republican candidate facing multiple criminal convictions (with or without the blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court) has the potential to dominate an already divided election campaign.
Trump faces criminal prosecution in four jurisdictions in 2024. POOL/AFP via Getty Images
The former president has filed several motions in each case, seeking to drop charges, delay proceedings and be allowed to speak publicly in what he considers politically motivated prosecutions.
The Supreme Court recently declined to expedite a separate appeal over Trump’s criminal trial scheduled to begin the day before “Super Tuesday.”
Special counsel Jack Smith is challenging Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in the 2020 election interference case. The former president says the prosecutions amount to a “partisan witch hunt.”
While the justices are staying out of the dispute for now, they could quickly return later this winter after a federal appeals court decides the merits in the coming weeks.
But judges will decide this term whether some of those charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot can challenge their convictions for “corruptly” obstructing “official proceedings.” Oral arguments could be held in February or March.
The Roberts court could play a critical role in this year’s election. AFP via Getty Images
More than 300 people face the same filibuster law for their alleged efforts to disrupt Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.
The former president faces the same obstruction charge in his case, and what the high court decides could affect Trump’s legal defense in the special counsel’s prosecution and the timing of his trial.
Look into the future
In the short term, the Supreme Court, with its solid conservative majority, will hear arguments and issue rulings in the coming months on hot-button issues such as:
- Abortion and access to mifepristone, a drug commonly used to terminate pregnancies
- Executive power and an effort to sharply curb the power of federal agencies to interpret and enforce “ambiguous” policies enacted by Congress.
- Social media and whether technology companies, either alone or with government cooperation, can moderate or prevent users from posting disinformation.
- Gun Rights and Federal Prohibition of Firearm Possession by Persons Subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders
Outside the courtroom, the court last month instituted a new “code of conduct”: ethics rules to clarify the ways judges can address conflicts of interest, recusals of cases, activities they can engage in outside the courtroom, court and its finances.
This followed months of revelations that some judges, notably Clarence Thomas, failed to accurately report gifts and other financial benefits in their required financial disclosure reports.
In a statement, the court admitted that the absence of binding ethical standards led some to believe that judges “regard themselves as free from any ethical standards.”
“To dispel this misunderstanding, we are publishing this code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long considered govern our conduct.”
All of this reflects the delicate balancing act that the chief justice will have to navigate in a presidential election year.
The unprecedented criticism of the high court’s work (inside and outside the court) does not go unnoticed by its nine members.
“There is a storm around us in the political world and in the world at large in the United States,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said this fall. “We, as judges and the legal system, should try to be a little bit more, I think, of the calm in the storm.”
Some court observers agree that the court as an institution may struggle in the short term to preserve its legitimacy and public trust, but time could be on its side.
“By its nature, the court takes a long-term view of things,” said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department official who has litigated cases before the Supreme Court. “Even when we disagree with the outcome of a particular case, I have never had any doubt that these are men and women who are doing everything they can to faithfully apply the laws and the Constitution of the United States to achieve the outcome.” correct”.
Categories: Trending
Source: vtt.edu.vn