A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the 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
The Research and Oversight of AI in Courts Act of 2026 creates a task force to study the use of AI speech-to-text and automatic speech recognition technology in U.S. courts. This task force will analyze the benefits and issues associated with these technologies, focusing on accuracy, privacy, and civil liberties. They are required to make recommendations for reforms to ensure Constitutional rights and accurate court records are protected. The task force will consist of 15 members and must submit a final report to Congress and the Attorney General within 18 months. Once the final report is submitted, the task force will terminate.
Yes· 3 of 18
- Scored +4
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Explicitly investigates AI's impact on individuals with speech impediments.
- Scored +4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Seeks to protect the constitutional right to an accurate official court record.
- Scored +3
Would immigrants be better off under this?
Protects those with foreign accents from having their words misrepresented by AI in court.
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 for reforms to ensure AI technology does not infringe upon Constitutional rights, including the right to an accurate official court record (Section 2(c)(2)).
-
Safeguarding Individuals with Unique Speech: The final report must investigate if AI technology alters comments made by people with accents, dialects, unique speech patterns, or speech impediments (Section 2(e)(2)).
-
Financial Analysis for Litigants: The bill requires an assessment of whether these technologies will increase or decrease costs for people involved in lawsuits (Section 2(e)(3)).
-
Prevention of Conflicts of Interest: Non-federal members of the task force cannot be employed by or receive money from entities that sell or provide AI technologies (Section 2(d)(2)).
-
Privacy and Safety Guidance: The task force will examine if the judicial system should provide guidance on picking vendors to ensure the privacy and safety of people involved in the court system (Section 2(e)(11)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Cybersecurity Risks: The bill acknowledges potential cybersecurity risks associated with using AI speech-to-text and automatic speech recognition technology in the judicial system (Section 2(e)(4)).
-
Accuracy and Integrity Concerns: The task force must investigate if the use of this technology compromises the integrity or accuracy of court records (Section 2(e)(12)).
-
Data Integrity Risks: The bill requires an assessment of risks to the authenticity, preservation, and evidentiary value of court records when using AI to manage and store them (Section 2(e)(6)).
-
Potential Court Disruptions: The final report must determine if these technologies cause 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? — Explicitly investigates AI's impact on individuals with speech impediments. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects those with foreign accents from having their words misrepresented by AI in court. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Studies potential AI bias against specific dialects and accents. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Studies potential AI bias against specific dialects and accents. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Studies potential AI bias against specific dialects and accents. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill assesses whether AI will decrease costs for litigants, which would benefit low-income individuals. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill assesses potential cost reductions for litigants. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Studies potential AI bias against specific dialects and accents.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Seeks to protect the constitutional right to an accurate official court record. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates detailed reports on AI accuracy and the use of watermarks/metadata for AI-generated records. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Focuses on the privacy implications of AI technology within the judicial system. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill establishes a federal task force to provide recommendations for both federal and state judicial systems. Does this limit the influence of paid lobbyists? — The bill prohibits task force members from being employed by AI vendors to prevent conflicts of interest.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The task force will examine the privacy of individuals and guidance for selecting secure vendors. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill creates oversight and guidelines for AI vendors providing services to the courts.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The task force will specifically study the impact of AI transcription on individuals with speech impediments. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill investigates if AI alters comments made by people with accents or dialects, potentially reducing systemic bias.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill explicitly mandates an assessment of cybersecurity risks associated with AI in the judicial system.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/26/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/19/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Cindy Hyde-SmithRepublican · Mississippi
Raphael WarnockDemocrat · Georgia
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont