A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill establishes the "AI Research and Oversight in Courts Task Force" to examine the use of AI speech-to-text and automatic speech recognition technologies in the United States judicial system. The task force is tasked with analyzing the legal and ethical implications, including feasibility, accuracy, privacy, and civil liberty impacts. It will review how these technologies affect the official court record and whether they infringe upon Constitutional rights. The group will include both federal employees and private experts to provide recommendations to Congress and the various branches of government. A final report must be submitted within 18 months, covering various technical and social risks. The Act terminates once the final report is submitted.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +5
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The bill examines whether AI speech recognition affects those with speech impediments or unique speech patterns.
- Scored +5
Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities?
The task force is specifically directed to investigate if AI technology alters comments from individuals with speech impediments.
- Scored +4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill seeks to ensure that AI technology does not infringe upon a litigant's right to an accurate official court record.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Constitutional Rights: The task force is tasked with making recommendations to ensure that AI technology use does not infringe upon rights under the Constitution, specifically including a litigant's right to an accurate official court record (Section 2(c)(2)).
-
Accuracy and Quality Control: The bill requires an analysis of whether AI technology affects the quality or accuracy of legal proceeding transcriptions (Section 2(e)(1)).
-
Inclusivity for Diverse Speakers: The task force must investigate if AI technology alters comments made by individuals with unique speech patterns, accents, dialects, or speech impediments (Section 2(e)(2)).
-
Financial Transparency: The bill mandates a review of whether using these technologies will increase or decrease costs for litigants and court expenditures (Section 2(e)(3) and Section 2(e)(7)).
-
Safety and Privacy Protections: The task force is required to assess cybersecurity risks and provide guidance on vendor selection to ensure the safety and privacy of parties and individuals involved in the judicial system (Section 2(e)(4) and Section 2(e)(11)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Data and Record Integrity Risks: The bill identifies potential risks regarding the integrity, authenticity, and preservation of the evidentiary value of court records when managed by AI (Section 2(e)(6)).
-
Security Threats: The task force is tasked with assessing potential cybersecurity risks associated with the use of AI technologies in judicial tasks (Section 2(e)(4)).
-
Procedural Disruptions: The bill seeks to determine if the use of this technology causes any disruptions during judicial proceedings (Section 2(e)(13)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill examines whether AI speech recognition affects those with speech impediments or unique speech patterns. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill investigates how AI technology handles unique speech patterns and accents, which can affect various ethnic groups. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill directs the task force to study whether AI technologies increase or decrease costs for litigants.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill seeks to ensure that AI technology does not infringe upon a litigant's right to an accurate official court record. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill considers requirements for watermarks and metadata to indicate when a court record has been modified by AI.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The task force is specifically directed to investigate if AI technology alters comments from individuals with speech impediments.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The bill requires an assessment of privacy implications and vendor selection to protect the privacy of judicial parties.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The task force is mandated to assess cybersecurity risks associated with using AI technologies in the judicial system.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill requires a review of vendor selection processes to ensure the safety and privacy of individuals involved in the judicial system.
- 5/19/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/19/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Glenn GrothmanRepublican · Wisconsin
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Pete StauberRepublican · Minnesota
Derek SchmidtRepublican · Kansas