Artificial intelligence is poised to reshape the judiciary, as Jack Kieffaber explores in his forthcoming article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He suggests that AI's ascension in legal systems is inevitable, primarily because it fulfills the key aim of textualism: predictability. His hypothetical—where a democratic republic replaces judges and lawyers with a state-sponsored AI called "Judge.AI"—provides a thought experiment that challenges notions of legal interpretation and governance. The AI ensures perfect predictability by interpreting statutes with mathematical precision, rendering all legal outcomes transparent and predetermined.

Kieffaber argues that predictability, the bedrock of textualism, necessitates the adoption of Judge.AI. By eliminating human error and subjective bias, the AI creates a legal system devoid of ambiguity, case law, or common law development. This transformation, while seemingly dystopian to some, aligns with the core values of textualism. He critiques those who claim textualist loyalties but resist such a future, suggesting that their objections are grounded in moralism or normative beliefs, which textualism fundamentally excludes.

The implications of this hypothetical are profound. Judge.AI challenges traditional principles like separation of powers, advisory opinions, and federal common law. Kieffaber dismantles objections to the AI system, arguing that these principles aim to counter human limitations and are thus redundant in an AI-driven legal framework. Furthermore, he contends that normative objections—rooted in subjective notions of good—lack relevance in a textualist framework that prioritizes formalism over morality.

The article delves into the philosophical underpinnings of democracy, legitimacy, and republicanism, arguing that each of these values is subordinate to predictability. Kieffaber emphasizes that predictability ensures the stability and neutrality essential to law, dismissing concerns about democracy’s potential to produce immoral laws as irrelevant under a textualist system. Judge.AI, with its mathematical objectivity, embodies the democratic ideal of rule by law rather than individuals, enhancing transparency and accountability.

Kieffaber also challenges the notion that the U.S. Constitution compels textualism, positing that textualism exists independently of any specific legal regime. His provocative thought experiment invites readers to question whether textualism’s ultimate goal is predictability or whether it serves deeper moral or democratic ends. For Kieffaber, textualism’s value lies in its ability to create a predictable, neutral legal framework, regardless of the moral quality of the laws it enforces.

This exploration raises significant ethical and practical questions about the role of AI in legal interpretation and decision-making. Kieffaber’s vision of a judicial system entirely governed by AI forces us to confront our assumptions about justice, fairness, and the human element in law. As AI continues to advance, his arguments suggest that we must grapple with whether predictability should outweigh the human discretion and moral judgment that have traditionally defined the judiciary.

This blog post is not guaranteed to be accurate and does not provide legal advice.