The Constitutional Stakes
Federal judges wield extraordinary power. A single order can strip constitutional rights, freeze assets, separate families, or jail defendants. Unlike attorneys—who can be sanctioned, sued for malpractice, or disbarred—Article III judges enjoy life tenure and removal only through impeachment.
That power demands corresponding responsibility. When attorneys submitted AI-generated briefs containing fake cases, judges sanctioned them, and in some case referred them to bar associations. But when judges themselves use AI without adequate oversight, who holds them accountable?
Grassley’s letters demand answers to specific questions:
- Did the judges, their law clerks, or court staff use generative AI in preparing the disputed orders?
- Was non-public case information entered into AI platforms, potentially violating confidentiality and privacy rules?
- Will the courts re-docket the original error-filled orders to preserve a transparent record?
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction over federal courts and judicial proceedings gives Grassley leverage—but not direct disciplinary authority. That power rests with the Judicial Conference and, ultimately, with impeachment proceedings that require substantial political will.
