MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — As artificial intelligence rapidly enters schools, businesses, and government offices, many Americans are asking the same question: Will AI someday help decide court cases?
New research from West Virginia University suggests the answer, at least for now, is “no.”
AI in courts is growing, but judges draw a line
A white paper co-authored by WVU College of Law associate professor Amy Cyphert found that although judges across the United States are beginning to use generative AI to improve efficiency, they remain firmly committed to keeping judicial decisions in human hands.
Read more: WVU Professor: After three years, ChatGPT has become a coworker—not a boss
“Every single judge we spoke with was clear-eyed about this,” Cyphert said. “They see these tools as helpful, but they also believe very strongly that the responsibility for decision-making must remain entirely human.”
The research comes as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly common in the legal profession. Attorneys are experimenting with artificial intelligence to draft documents and conduct research, while courts nationwide are developing policies governing its use following several high-profile cases in which AI-generated legal citations proved false.
Related: Here’s what artificial intelligence says about the future of West Virginia
Rather than speculate about how judges might use the technology, Cyphert and her colleagues asked them directly.
The report is based on in-depth interviews with 13 state and federal judges conducted through the AI Policy Consortium for Law and Courts, a collaboration between the National Center for State Courts and the Thomson Reuters Institute.
“This project really started from a gap,” Cyphert said. “We were all talking about generative AI in the abstract, thinking about guidance, training, and risks, but we didn’t actually have much data on how judges themselves were using it.”
How judges are using AI in courts
The interviews revealed that some judges already use artificial intelligence to summarize lengthy court filings, organize case materials, prepare speeches, and develop questions before oral arguments.
Many compared the technology to a junior assistant—useful for administrative tasks but incapable of replacing legal analysis, experience, and judicial judgment.
“Judges talked about using AI as a kind of force multiplier,” Cyphert said. “If it can help with organizing information or preparing materials, that frees them up to spend more time on the core work of judging.”
Can AI make courts more accessible?
Researchers also found that judges see potential for artificial intelligence to make the legal system easier to navigate, especially for people who represent themselves in court.
“There are real opportunities here to make the system more accessible,” Cyphert said. “Clearer explanations, better communication, and easier navigation of court procedures could make a meaningful difference.”
The risks of using AI in courts
Still, judges emphasized that artificial intelligence presents significant risks. Among the biggest concerns were so-called “hallucinations,” in which AI systems confidently generate information that is inaccurate or entirely fabricated.
“Hallucinations were a concern that every judge raised,” Cyphert said. “These systems can confidently produce information that simply isn’t real, and sometimes that’s easy to catch, but sometimes it’s not. That means careful verification is essential.”
Those concerns mirror guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, whose AI Risk Management Framework recommends that organizations using artificial intelligence evaluate systems for accuracy, reliability, transparency, and ongoing human oversight. The framework has become one of the nation’s leading references for responsible AI use in both the public and private sectors.
Protecting privacy in AI-enabled courts
Judges also expressed concerns about protecting confidential information and maintaining public confidence in the courts. Many reported avoiding AI tools when working with sealed or sensitive documents and said every AI-generated result must be independently verified before it can be trusted.
Researchers found that caution was consistent regardless of a judge’s court, geographic region, or years of experience.
What’s next for AI in America’s courts
The study also points to a growing need for clearer ethical guidelines, disclosure standards, and practical training as AI becomes embedded in everyday software used throughout the legal profession.
Related: Why data centers collide with West Virginia’s new profitable future
“They want practical guidance,” Cyphert said. “How to use these tools well, how to spot problems, how to share best practices—that’s where the field is headed.”
For West Virginia University, the research places the university at the center of a national conversation over how one of America’s oldest public institutions should adapt to one of its newest technologies.
As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, the researchers conclude that judges are unlikely to surrender the courtroom to machines. Instead, they envision AI serving much like calculators, legal databases, and word processors before it—a tool that can improve efficiency but never replace the judgment, ethics, and accountability that remain at the heart of the American justice system.