PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
In several jurisdictions, judges may use AI to assist with court work, but they may not hand it the power to decide cases. The boundary is not universal: Spain and Victoria expressly bar AI from replacing judicial decision-making, Arizona says rulings cannot be delegated even as it continues testing approved tools, and China’s Supreme People’s Court promotes wider AI integration in judicial work. These examples do not establish a global consensus—or a ranking of the world’s largest courts.
What does “no to AI decision-making” mean?
It generally means a human judge must make the ruling and remain accountable for it. It does not necessarily mean a court bans every AI tool or every use of AI in case-related work. Some rules allow bounded assistance, such as organizing materials, helping with research, or drafting text, provided a judge exercises meaningful control and checks the output.
![AI Law and Policy: [Connected eBook]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41Y7jOay2eL._SL160_.jpg)
The distinction matters because a tool that helps locate a precedent is not performing the same function as a system that weighs evidence and chooses an outcome. The jurisdictions discussed below draw that line differently, and their instruments have different legal status and scope. They should not be read as one shared international rule.
What are courts allowing, and what are they prohibiting?
| Jurisdiction or body | Position in the cited policy or announcement | Practical boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Spain, General Council of the Judiciary | Instruction 2/2026, published January 30, 2026, requires effective human control and bars AI from substituting for judges in decisions, assessment of facts or evidence, and interpretation or application of law. | Judicial AI use is limited to systems provided by competent justice administrations or the Council. AI-generated drafts require the judge’s complete, critical review and validation; the judge retains full and exclusive responsibility. |
| Arizona Supreme Court | The court declined a proposed temporary ban on judges’ generative AI use. | Its news release says AI cannot make legal rulings or other decisions. The court permits testing of approved tools for support, including efficiency, backlog reduction, operational effectiveness, and access to justice. A committee is to report by March 1, 2027. |
| England and Wales | The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary announced judicial AI guidance in October 2025, applying to judicial office holders and listed support staff. | The announcement stresses integrity, the rule of law, and personal responsibility for material produced in a judicial officer’s name. The announcement alone does not establish which particular tasks the full guidance permits or prohibits. |
| China, Supreme People’s Court | Its opinions call for deeper AI integration into judicial work. | The policy describes applications including evidence guidance and review, legal and precedent retrieval, adjudication assistance, and document generation and review. It is a significant counterexample to a simple claim that courts everywhere are saying no to AI. |
| Victoria, Australia | Supreme Court guidance dated May 14, 2026, states that judicial officers must not use generative AI for judicial decision-making. | Supportive uses include organizing and locating case material, summaries and chronologies, legal research assistance, and proofreading. Case-related use requires court-approved tools. |
| Brazil, National Council of Justice | Resolution No. 615/2025 permits generative AI in supportive roles with safeguards. | Autonomous judicial decision-making is prohibited without judicial guidance, interpretation, verification, and review. The resolution also addresses confidential data, and the judge remains responsible. |
The table reflects the instruments and official announcements identified here, not a uniform measure of enforceability. A judicial instruction, a court’s guidance, an official announcement, and a resolution are not interchangeable; each applies within its own jurisdiction and to the people and activities it covers.
#1 Best Overall
Can judges use AI to draft judgments?
In the examples available, drafting assistance is not treated as the same thing as delegating the decision, but conditions differ. Spain expressly allows support while requiring a judge to personally and critically review and validate AI-generated judicial drafts. China’s policy describes document generation and review as part of its wider AI applications. The Arizona release establishes the bar on AI making a ruling, but does not provide a detailed drafting protocol. The England and Wales announcement emphasizes personal responsibility without specifying individual use cases.
So permission to use AI for drafting should not be inferred just because a jurisdiction allows other support tasks. Where the relevant guidance or rule is not described in detail, the safe conclusion is limited: the judge remains responsible for any work issued in their name, and the source cited here does not settle whether a particular drafting workflow is allowed.
Rank #2
Why keep a human judge responsible?
These policies put responsibility on the judicial officer rather than the software. Arizona’s Supreme Court stated: “Decision-making is a human function and a core judicial responsibility that cannot be delegated to AI or anyone else.” Victoria’s guidance is direct: “Judicial Officers must not use GenAI for judicial decision-making.” Spain similarly assigns judges full and exclusive responsibility for decisions even when AI assists.
Human review is meaningful only if the judge can assess the underlying record and law, verify generated claims, and decide independently. A nominal sign-off would not meet the central policy distinction if the system effectively supplied the outcome and the judge did not scrutinize it.
Why do approved tools and data protections matter?
Some rules control not just what the tool does, but which tool may be used. Spain limits judicial activity to systems supplied by competent justice administrations or the General Council of the Judiciary and specifies protections for judicial data. Victoria requires court-approved AI tools for case-related matters. Brazil’s resolution also addresses confidential data.
These controls matter because case materials can contain confidential, personal, or otherwise sensitive information. The policies described here do not establish one common global data-security standard; they show that tool approval and information handling are part of the governance boundary, not a side issue.
Rank #4
Do these examples prove that the world’s largest courts oppose AI?
No. “World’s largest” is not defined or measured in the cited materials, and the examples do not establish a global count, percentage, or consensus. They show a range of institutional approaches: some explicitly prevent AI from making judicial decisions while allowing support, Arizona rejected a proposed general temporary ban but still bars AI rulings, and China’s Supreme People’s Court promotes integration across judicial functions.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteTo compare court policies accurately, ask what kind of instrument was issued, whom it covers, whether it bars only autonomous decisions or also other case-related use, what assistance remains permitted, whether tools must be approved, and how confidentiality and accountability are handled. Without those distinctions, saying that courts are “banning AI” obscures more than it explains.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
