In the recent case of Matthew Phillips v Mari Parlade, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada considered whether a judge could rely on judicial immunity where it was alleged that she had delegated her decision-making entirely to artificial intelligence (AI).
The Court held that, even assuming the allegations to be true for the purpose of the application, the judge remained protected by judicial immunity. The Court emphasised that judges in the United States enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for judicial acts, even where such acts are alleged to have been erroneous, malicious, or in excess of the judge’s authority.
The Court further reaffirmed that judicial immunity may be overcome in limited circumstances, namely where the challenged conduct is undertaken in a clear absence of all jurisdiction or where the conduct is not judicial in nature.
Importantly, the Court did not rule that judges are legally permitted to delegate their judicial decision-making to AI. Rather, it held that the alleged use of AI did not, by itself, transform the act of issuing a judicial ruling into a non-judicial act for the purposes of judicial immunity.
The decision is significant in the emerging debate concerning the use of AI in judicial decision-making. It illustrates that, at least in the context of a civil claim for damages, the use or alleged misuse of AI does not necessarily deprive a judge of the protection afforded by judicial immunity.