Wary of the future of the federal courts, Chief Justice John Roberts warned on Sunday about the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) when deciding cases and other important legal matters.
His remarks were made in an annual year-end report issued by the head of the federal judiciary, which made no mention of the current controversy surrounding his court, including calls for more transparency and ethics reforms that bind judges.
Noting the legal profession in general is “notoriously averse to change,” Roberts urged a slow approach when embracing new technology by the courts.
“AI clearly has great potential to dramatically improve access to important information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike,” he said. “But just as clearly it risks invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law.”
“But any use of AI requires caution and humility,” he added. “As 2023 approaches with unbearable predictions about the future of Artificial Intelligence, some may wonder if the judges will become obsolete. I’m sure we don’t— but equally confident that technological change will continue to change our work.”
Roberts also summarizes the work of the nation’s 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts and his own Supreme Court.
Previous year-end reports have focused on court security, judge salaries, increased caseloads and the budget.
The chief justice’s forecast for the future does not include his own court caseload, as he and his colleagues prepare to tackle a number of politically charged disputes in the new year, many centered on former president Donald Trump’s legal troubles and re-election bid.
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts warned on Sunday about the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) in an election year. Getty Images/iStockphoto
Election exam
The Supreme Court has dealt with its share of electoral fights over the decades — remember Bush v. Gore nearly a quarter century ago? — but 2024 promises to make the judicial drama seem quaint by comparison.
The first is whether states can keep Trump’s name off the primary and general election ballots. Colorado’s highest court said yes, and now the US Supreme Court is being asked to decide the extent of the 14th Amendment’s provision barring those “engaged in rebellion” from office.
State courts across the country are considering whether Trump’s role in the 2020 election meddling and Capitol riots on January 6 will disqualify him from running for re-election.
The justices are being asked to rule on the matter quickly, either in mid-February or early March, when “Super Tuesday” primaries in 16 states are held.
Chief Justice John Roberts attended the State of the Union address in February. via REUTERS
In his leadership role as “the first among equals,” the 68-year-old Roberts will likely be a key player in shaping what voting disputes his court will hear and ultimately decide, perhaps as the deciding vote.
Despite a 6-3 conservative majority, the chief justice has often tried to play a middle-of-the-road role, finding less-than-optimal approaches that have frustrated his more right-leaning colleagues.
But despite any reluctance to stay out of the fray, the court looks set to become embroiled in election-related controversies.
“Given the number of election disputes that are likely to come, many of them could move quickly and it will be very important to see what the courts do,” said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel 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 have to be decided by judges on the merits.”
Already the high court is considering redistricting challenges to voting boundaries in GOP-leaning states, brought by civil rights groups.
That includes South Carolina’s first congressional district and alleges the Republican-led legislature created a racial gerrymander. A decision is expected in the spring of 2024.
The high court may also be asked to consider emergency appeals regarding postal vote restrictions, provisional ballot deadlines, voting hours, the Electoral College and more.
Just weeks before President Trump’s first House impeachment of 2019, Roberts is trying to narrow 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. “That’s not how we in court work and the results in our case don’t show otherwise.”
But the court’s reputation as a fair arbiter of the law and the Constitution continues to erode to an all-time low.
A Fox News poll in June found that only 48% of those polled had confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 83% just six years ago.
Trump’s term?
Donald Trump faces separate criminal prosecutions in four jurisdictions in 2024 — two federal cases over document mishandling and 2020 election meddling; and two state cases in Georgia over 2020 election interference and New York over hush money payments to porn stars.
The prospect of a former president and GOP front-runner facing multiple criminal convictions — with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court — has the potential to dominate an already fractured election campaign.
Trump faces criminal prosecution in four jurisdictions in 2024. POOL/AFP via Getty Images
The former president has filed multiple motions in each case, seeking to drop charges, delay proceedings, and be allowed to speak publicly about what he sees as politically motivated prosecutions.
The Supreme Court recently refused to expedite a separate appeal, regarding Trump’s scheduled criminal trial that was scheduled to begin the day before “Super Tuesday.”
Special counsel Jack Smith challenged Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the 2020 election meddling case. The former president said the prosecution was a “partisan witch hunt.”
Although the justices are staying out of the dispute for now, they could jump back in quickly this winter, after a federal appeals court rules on the merits in the coming weeks.
But a judge will decide this term whether some of the defendants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots can challenge their convictions because “corruption” obstructed “official proceedings.” Oral arguments can be held in February or March.
The Roberts court could play an important role in this year’s election. AFP via Getty Images
More than 300 people face similar obstruction laws over their alleged efforts to interfere with Congressional certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.
The former president faces a similar count of obstruction in his case, and what the high court decides could affect Trump’s legal defense in the special counsel’s indictment, and the timing of his trial.
Look in front
In the short term, the Supreme Court, with its strong conservative majority, will hear arguments and issue decisions in the coming months on hot topics such as:
- Abortion, and access to mifepristone, a drug commonly used to terminate pregnancy
- Executive power, and efforts to sharply curtail the power of federal agencies to interpret and enforce “vague” policies enacted by Congress
- Social media, and whether tech firms — whether on their own or in collaboration with governments — can moderate or prevent users from posting misinformation
- Gun rights and the federal ban on gun ownership by those subject to domestic violence restraining orders
Off the bench, the court last month implemented a new “code of conduct” — ethical rules to clarify how judges can deal with conflicts of interest, case withdrawals, activities they can engage in outside the court and their finances.
It follows months of revelations that some judges, notably Clarence Thomas, did not accurately report gifts and other financial benefits on their required financial disclosure reports.
The court in a statement acknowledged the absence of binding ethical rules led some to believe that judges “consider themselves not limited by any ethical rules.”
“To remove this misunderstanding, we issue this code, which in large part represents a codification of the principles we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”
All of this reflects the delicate balancing act that the chief justice will go through in a presidential election year.
The unprecedented criticism of the high court’s work – on and off the bench – has not been lost on its nine members.
“There is a storm around us in the political world and the world at large in America,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh said this fall. “We, as judges and the legal system, have to try to be a little bit more, I think, about the calm in the storm.”
Some court observers agree the court as an institution may struggle in the near future to maintain legitimacy and public confidence, but time may be on its side.
“By its very nature, courts take a long-term view of things,” said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department official, who has tried cases before the Supreme Court. “Even if we disagree with the verdict in a particular case, I have never doubted that these are men and women who are doing their best to faithfully apply the law and the Constitution of the United States to reach the right decision.”
Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/
