Important to note that this was not a decision on the merits. The court didn’t find that the decision was written by AI; just that the facts alleged would be covered by judicial immunity. Proper action is to appeal, and file a grievance with the Nevada Council of Judicial Discipline, possibly also the Nevada Bar Association. Those institutions take these things seriously, and the judge can end up with her license suspended or even disbarred. A license suspension, even a short one, is very serious for a judge. A judge is forbidden from having any other employment, so a judge under suspension isn’t getting a salary and can’t get other employment. So it’s a pretty significant monetary penalty.

EDIT: Yeah this plaintiff is nuts. His complaint, linked by a response to my comment and in other places, is just bizarre. I would highly doubt any allegations he might make.This guy has apparently been suing a bunch of judges in the family courts in Las Vegas. A lot of those proceedings appear to be online: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsKMpjAPcB2vRRCMtdEb1...

The plaintiff in this case lost and decided that the judge used AI to rule against him. However in his own complaint, which was drafted by AI, he says that it was permissible for the judge to do so... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71063603/phillips-v-par...

Importantly, the judge did not actually use AI. She just followed the law. In the original family court case the plaintiff had submitted an AI drafted filing which did not include any (real) legal citations supporting the legal arguments made and was given the opportunity to amend but refused to do so. So the judge ruled against him on all 5 claims.

EDIT. This all supposedly happened back in mid 2023... the AI tools the plaintiff alleged the judge used didn't get released until 2024.

EDIT 2. The plaintiff actually says he wants an AI judge.

EDIT 3. If you read the complaint in full it's clear he has severe mental issues and doesn't grasp how the law works. Severe jurisdictional confusion and lack of understanding about basic trial processes (even though he claims to be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar). Every judge in America would rule against him.

I just read a story of a guy trying to prompt inject his court submissions to win because he thought the court was using AI. I guess he just got the wrong judge: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/suspecting-court...

If the judge is allowed to outsource their job, can they outsource to anyone? What about to a donor who contributed to the campaign? what about to someone who has a vested interest in the outcome of the judgement?

If outsourcing is permitted, then why have judges in the first place? why not just have an AI and let it do all the work and save money for the govt?

This is how you get vigilante justice. It is only held back by people believing that the state will treat them fairly in a court. Once the majority no longer believe that, you get chaos. I am entirely sure we do not want that. The correct action would be to make an EXTREME example of this judge: disbarment, prison, etc...

> This is how you get vigilante justice. It is only held back by people believing that the state will treat them fairly in a court.

That's the threat at least, but do the majority actually feel that way today? Given how frequently our legal system has denied people justice and the scale at which that's been happening, I wonder how much of a threat it really is in our current environment. I'm not sure what it is that keeps people from trying to take matters into their own hands more often. Maybe it's learned helplessness, despair, fear, or lack of opportunity, but whatever it is it's been pretty effective considering the kinds of harms that people have suffered with no recourse to be made whole through the courts.

Several commenters point out that while suing the judge is not an option, appealing the judge's ruling remains an option.

So just because a judge completely abdicates their responsibility to use their own judgment, the person now needs to go through a lengthy and expensive appeals process? And even if the judge is sanctioned or removed from the bench, that only prevents future harm; it does not actually make whole the person they have already harmed.

I can tolerate some level of immunity -- maybe even beyond qualified immunity -- to protect judges that make good-faith errors. But when they're engaging in blatant misconduct, it seems like absolute immunity is providing more protection than is necessary or warranted.

Starting a new lawsuit against the judge, potentially with its own appeals, is no less expensive and lengthy of a process than appealing the existing case. Allowing such suits would increase costs to everyone involved, not decrease them.

> And even if the judge is sanctioned or removed from the bench, that only prevents future harm; it does not actually make whole the person they have already harmed.

Yes this is a general problem with misconduct by police, prosecutors, and judges. A lot of times you are fortunate simply to win the case, but usually don't get any compensation for harm caused by the arrest, incarceration before trial, and cost of defense.

I would support dropping immunity and allowing private lawsuits when misconduct is proven through existing processes. But more-so it is very frustrating to me how often the American justice system focuses on punishing the perpetrator while doing little to make the victim whole. The victim should not be required to file a separate private lawsuit to obtain compensation, it should always be part of a criminal prosecution and other disciplinary processes.

Appealing the judge's ruling would be meaningless. Appeals are designed to correct "errors of law." But here, the judge made no "error of law." Rather, the judge committed a grave ethical violation. The judge delegated her decision-making duties to a third party (ChatGPT!). In America, judges are forbidden to delegate their decision-making duties. Such delegation is NOT a "judicial act," and therefore, because there was NO "judicial act" -- judicial immunity does NOT apply. P.S. I'm the guy who sued the judge. :)

If the judge's order was AI slop then presumably it wouldn't withstand an appeal. So one is left wondering why they didn't appeal it in the first place. Why file a whole separate lawsuit? That's going to be even lengthier and more expensive than an appeal.

In fact, a successful appeal might have helped a subsequent lawsuit against the judge since questions like "was AI used?" would have already been litigated. Instead they filed a new lawsuit where those questions won't even be considered until the immunity question is addressed.

It seems like a very strange legal strategy, particularly since from what I can tell the plaintiff is himself an experienced lawyer.

This is a film, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_(2026_film)

The film is framed as sci fi, but this decision underlines that right now, any judge has the freedom to replace themselves with a chatbot, in part or in full.

Funny this comes up because I just watched it last night. It has 24% on Rotten Tomatoes which is pretty accurate. Not quite sure why it was made or why the actors involved signed up for it.

This was an interesting and engrossing film with an attractive sci-fi/AI setting, whose moral and theme, of course, had absolutely nothing at all to do with AI.

As far as I can tell, the use of AI is alleged but not proven, as the case is dismissed without deciding that point.

At this stage of the lawsuit, the federal court presumed the truth of the A.I. allegations. The federal court ruled that such conduct, if true, is nevertheless subject to absolute immunity. Stay tuned for the appeal in the 9th Circuit.

The US justice system is a farce, 90% of the time it is merely used as an extortion racket to fund the cops, courts, and local jail. Corruption is rampant, friends of the court regularly get away with breaking the law, and the only two considerations cops use when arresting people is will it make their fragile ego feel better, and will the charges result in a significant profit for the court/cops.

Extortion doesn't need organization, just incentive alignment. Fines, fees, civil forfeiture, bail bonds, court costs tacked onto every conviction - money flows one direction whether or not anyone's coordinating it. Chaos and profit motive aren't mutually exclusive.

interesting. criminal law is hardly organized enough to be extortion; more like 'success' via chaos, or throwing spaghetti against a wall at the right or wrong time, is my guess. not sure where you think profit comes into that last thing you wrote. you seem pretty focused on criminal law here; civil law is generally really far uglier and more corrupt in this country than any other. I mean stuff like suing and divorce.

This is just how the US legal system works. When a judge has made a terrible decision for dumb reasons, you appeal it, you don’t sue the judge. There’d be a similar result if you sued a judge for ruling against you at the instructions of their cult leader or something.

But did the judge make the decision? I think there's a real question of whether this is a failure of due process rights. But I also think supreme Court Justices need to be awake for the court to actually hear arguments, so what do I know.

The judge did make the decision to outsource to an LLM. This isn't new and isn't too different from tossing a coin.

You are correct. It's a due process violation. Here, the judge wrongfully delegated her decision-making duties, and such delegation is forbidden by law. Such delegation is NOT a proper judicial act; therefore, the doctrine of judicial immunity does NOT apply.

IANAL, but my understanding is that Judicial immunity in the US is absolute; if a Judge orders the police to beat up a defense attorney, they cannot be sued for it[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mireles_v._Waco

either the judge made the decision (in which case he has immunity) or he didn't (in which case he isn't the right person to sue)

the correct steps are appeals in the merit and disciplinary action against the judge

Judge outsourcing the call to a model is still a decision, same as if she'd flipped a coin or asked her clerk to just wing it. We've all had to decide who signs off on stuff at 2am when nobody's around, but "the tool decided" was never on the table as an excuse.

And there are processes for disciplining and even removing judges who fail to uphold their responsibilities. A private lawsuit simply isn't venue for doing so.

>> When a judge has made a terrible decision for dumb reasons, you appeal it

This is not how the legal system works. You need grounds for the Appeal - such as procedural - AND need to get another court to agree with your grounds AND be willing to have the case heard again. None of these are gimmes, and they all take time and money.

This definitely how the US system works. The core job of the appeal court is correct errors of law.

Your other criticisms are valid, such as time, money and there is definitely deference to lower court judges. But the recourse for a judge misunderstanding the law (for AI or any reason) is the appeal process.

Seen this in code review too: "just revert the commit" ignores approval chains, CI gates, who's on call. Legal system same deal - "just appeal" skips the part where that costs six figures and a year.

Yeah, this tracks with what I ran into filing a bar complaint instead of a lawsuit a while back. Judicial immunity is basically absolute for anything done in a judicial capacity, even reckless or lazy stuff. Your recourse is appeal, or a complaint to the judicial conduct commission, not civil court.

This is not real life.

Different rules for the rulers and the proles has been a big part of life on Earth for eternity. Why shouldn't we be surprised that this judge thinks it's okay to do things that a grade schooler can't.

The way to challenge a judge's opinion is to appeal it, not personally sue the judge. These responses are histrionic and misinformed.

If a judge can outsource judgement, can they outsource to anyone? What about to a campaign donor? what about to a victim or the accused?

Posting the same questions multiple times is bad form.

Volokh Conspiracy is just culture war ragebait.

The wasn't a single opinion presented in that very short article. It was largely quoting and restating what happened- the judge isn't personally liable via civil suit.

Other articles by volokh might be intentionally incendiary (I haven't read them) but this one is as bland as bland gets.

Small thing: judicial immunity isn't "for using AI," it's the same doctrine that's always protected judges acting in their judicial capacity, even negligently or maliciously. AI doesn't change the analysis at all, it's just the latest bad-act example being immunized. Same rule as always.