Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court chief justice report urges caution on use of AI ahead of contentious election year

Published

on

Supreme Court chief justice report urges caution on use of AI ahead of contentious election year

With a wary eye over the future of the federal courts, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned Sunday of the perils of artificial intelligence (AI) when deciding cases and other important legal matters.

His remarks came in the annual year-end report issued by the head of the federal judiciary, which made no mention of current controversies surrounding his court, including calls for greater transparency and ethics reform binding the justices.

Noting the legal profession in general is “notoriously averse to change,” Roberts urged a go-slow approach when embracing new technologies by the courts.

“AI obviously has great potential to dramatically increase access to key information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike,” he said. “But just as obviously it risks invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law.”

TOP REPUBLICAN TALKS AI ARMS RACE: ‘YOU’LL HAVE MACHINES COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER’

Advertisement

Street view of the Supreme Court building. (STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

“But any use of AI requires caution and humility,” he added. “As 2023 draws to a close with breathless predictions about the future of Artificial Intelligence, some may wonder whether judges are about to become obsolete. I am sure we are not— but equally confident that technological changes will continue to transform our work.”

Roberts also summarized the work of the nation’s 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts and his own Supreme Court. Previous year-end reports have focused on courthouse security, judges’ pay, rising caseloads and budgets. 

The chief justice’s predictions of the future did not include his own court’s caseload, as he and his colleagues are poised to tackle several politically-charged disputes in the new year, many focused on former president Donald Trump’s legal troubles and re-election efforts.

WATCHDOG WARNS SEVERAL FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE BEHIND ON AI REQUIREMENTS

Advertisement

Chief Justice John Roberts attends the State of the Union address. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Election examinations

The Supreme Court has tackled its share of election fights over the decades — remember Bush v. Gore nearly a quarter century ago? — but 2024 promises to make that judicial drama look quaint by comparison. 

First up could be whether states can keep Trump’s name off primary and general election ballots. Colorado’s highest court said yes, and now the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide the extent of a 14th Amendment provision that bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.”

State courts across the country are considering whether Trump’s role in 2020 election interference and the Jan. 6 Capitol riots would disqualify him from seeking re-election.

The justices are being asked to decide the matter quickly, either by mid-February or early March, when the “Super Tuesday” primaries in 16 states are held.

Advertisement

In his leadership role as “first among equals,” the 68-year-old Roberts will likely be the key player in framing what voting disputes his court will hear and ultimately decide, perhaps as the deciding vote. 

Despite a 6-3 conservative majority, the chief justice has often tried to play the middle, seeking a less-is-best approach that has frustrated his more right-leaning colleagues.

But despite any reluctance to stay away from the fray, the court, it seems, will be involved in election-related controversies. 

“Given the number of election disputes it might be coming, a lot of them could be moving very quickly and will be very important to see what the court does,” said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. “Sometimes the Supreme Court has no choice but to be involved in the election cases, because there are some voting rights and election cases that the justices are required to resolve on the merits.”

Already the high court is considering redistricting challenges to voting boundaries in GOP-leaning states, brought by civil rights groups.

Advertisement

That includes South Carolina’s first congressional district and claims the Republican-led legislature created a racial gerrymander. A ruling is expected in spring 2024.

The high court could also be asked to weigh in on emergency appeals over vote-by-mail restrictions, provisional ballots deadlines, polling hours, the Electoral College and more. 

Just weeks before President Trump’s first House impeachment in 2019, Roberts tried to downplay his court’s consideration of partisan political disputes.

“When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms,” Roberts said at the time. “That’s not how we at the court function and the results in our cases do not suggest otherwise.”

But the court’s reputation as a fair arbiter of the law and Constitution has continued to erode to all-time lows.

Advertisement

A Fox News poll in June found just 48% of those surveyed having confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 83% just six years ago.

COMMERCE SECRETARY WILL BAN NVIDIA AI CHIPS DESIGNED TO GET AROUND RESTRICTIONS

Former President Donald Trump on the campaign trail. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The Trump term?

Donald Trump faces separate criminal prosecution in four jurisdictions in 2024 — two federal cases over document mishandling and 2020 election interference; and two state cases in Georgia over 2020 election interference and New York over hush money payments to a porn star.

The prospect of a former president and leading GOP candidate facing multiple criminal convictions — with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court — has the potential to dominate an already riven election campaign.

Advertisement

The former president has filed various motions in each case, seeking to drop charges, delay the proceedings, and be allowed to speak publicly at what he sees as politically-motivated prosecutions.

The Supreme Court recently refused to fast-track a separate appeal, over Trump’s scheduled criminal trial scheduled to start the day before “Super Tuesday.”

Special counsel Jack Smith is challenging Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in the 2020 election interference case. The former president says the prosecutions amount to a “partisan witch hunt.”

While the justices are staying out of the dispute for now, they could quickly jump back in later this winter, after a federal appeals court decides the merits in coming weeks.

But the justices will decide this term whether some January 6 Capitol riot defendants can challenge their convictions for “corruptly” obstructing “official proceedings.” Oral arguments could be held in February or March.

Advertisement

More than 300 people are facing that same obstruction law over their alleged efforts to disrupt Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

The former president faces the same obstruction count in his case, and what the high court decides could affect Trump’s legal defense in the special counsel prosecution, and the timing of his trial.

EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES OF BIDEN’S AI EXECUTIVE ORDER

Supreme Court Justices posing for an official photo at the Supreme Court. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

Look ahead

In the short term, the Supreme Court, with its solid conservative majority, will hear arguments and issue rulings in coming months on hot-button topics like:

Advertisement

– Abortion, and access to mifepristone, a commonly-used drug to end pregnancies

– Executive power, and an effort to sharply curb the power of federal agencies to interpret and enforce “ambiguous” policies enacted by Congress

– Social media, and whether tech firms — either on their own or with the cooperation of the government — can moderate or prevent users from posting disinformation

– Gun rights and a federal ban on firearm possession by those subject to domestic violence restraining orders

Off the bench, the court last month instituted a new “code of conduct” — ethics rules to clarify ways the justices can address conflicts of interest, case recusals, activities they can participate in outside the court and their finances.

Advertisement

It followed months of revelations that some justices, particularly Clarence Thomas, did not accurately report gifts and other financial benefits on their required financial disclosure reports.

The court in a statement admitted the absence of binding ethics rules led some to believe that the justices “regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”

“To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”

All this reflects the delicate balancing act the chief justice will navigate in a presidential election year.

The unprecedented criticism of the high court’s work — on and off the bench — is not lost on its nine members.

Advertisement

“There’s a storm around us in the political world and the world at large in America,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said this fall. “We, as judges and the legal system, need to try to be a little more, I think, of the calm in the storm.”

Some court watchers agree the court as an institution may struggle in the near term to preserve its legitimacy and public confidence, but time might be on its side.

“By its nature, the court kind of takes a long-term view of things,” said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department official, who has litigated cases before the Supreme Court. “Even when we disagree with the outcome in a particular case, I have never had any doubt that these are men and women who are doing their absolute best to faithfully apply the laws and the Constitution of the United States to reach the right result.”

Advertisement

Politics

Dem senators dodge crucial question on illegal alien accused of killing Chicago college student

Published

on

Dem senators dodge crucial question on illegal alien accused of killing Chicago college student

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

While Republican senators, like Texas’ Ted Cruz and Florida’s Rick Scott, were quick to condemn the policies that kept the illegal immigrant killer of 18-year-old Sheridan Gorman from being deported, Democratic senators dodged questions on whether Gorman’s killer should have previously been deported prior to this month’s murder.

Gorman, who was a student at Loyola University of Chicago at the time of her death, was allegedly killed by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, Jose Medina, 25. Medina was apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol on May 9, 2023, but was subsequently released into the U.S. under the Biden administration, according to Trump’s Department of Homeland Security. 

A short time later, Medina was arrested for shoplifting in Chicago, but was again released on June 19, 2023, DHS said. A judge put a warrant out on Medina after he failed to appear in court for his shoplifting charge, which was still active at the time of Gorman’s killing, according to the Chicago Sun Times. 

“Shoplifting in and of itself is not a violent crime. It’s not an indicator of a person that’s leaning toward violent crime,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., when asked about Medina’s case and whether he should’ve been deported prior to Gorman’s murder. 

Advertisement

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ACCUSED OF KILLING CHICAGO COLLEGE STUDENT TO FACE COURT AFTER TUBERCULOSIS DELAY

Sheridan Gorman (L) was allegedly murdered by Jose Medina (R) (Sheridan Gorman/Instagram and Cook County Sheriff’s Office)

“You’re asking me to speculate on a bunch of things and I can’t answer that,” said Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto, D-Nev., when asked if Gorman’s killer, and other illegal immigrant murderers who had significant criminal records at the time of their arrests, should have been deported before people got hurt. “I don’t know the cases. I trust our justice system to do the right thing and hold people accountable.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., responded that the Trump administration’s broad deportation crackdowns have prevented federal law enforcement from targeting genuinely dangerous people, an argument pushed by other top Democrats in Congress. “I think that if Trump cleared out Chicago and if ICE did their job, he wouldn’t be here, right?” Duckworth said as she got onto an elevator on Capitol Hill. “But they deported people who are not… [unintelligible].”

Meanwhile, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., offered a more judicious response, but also suggested the style by which the Trump administration is deporting people is problematic. 

Advertisement

“Do I think violent criminals should be deported? Yes,” Slotkin said, adding it is an “easy” call to deport someone who has been “accused and properly prosecuted.” But, Slotkin added, “Innocent civilians who are protesting their government and using their freedom of speech should not be fingered and booted out.” 

Democrats who spoke with Fox News Digital did quickly agree that violent criminals who entered and are residing in the country unlawfully should be deported.

From left to right: Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev. (Getty Images)

SHERIDAN GORMAN’S UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER TOUTS ICE TRACKER AFTER FRESHMAN ALLEGEDLY MURDERED BY ILLEGAL ALIEN

“Anybody who violates, or creates crime in this country – particularly kills somebody – should not only be held accountable in the United States, but, yes, there should be immigration enforcement against that individual,” Cortez-Masto said. 

Advertisement

“Every community deserves to feel safe, and I think people who commit violent crimes should not be allowed to either be in our country, or to be among our communities,” added Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md. 

Durbin, meanwhile, qualified his comments about Medina’s shoplifting charge by admitting “We ought to do a careful examination of people coming into this country and those who want to stay in this country,” adding that, “If they are dangerous to the community, they need to be denied entry or taken out of the country later.”

But Republican Senators Cruz and Scott were quick to bash Democrats for allegedly caring more about illegal immigrants than American citizens.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) holds a press conference with families who lost loved ones in the January 29, 2025 DCA plane crash on December 15, 2025 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 

Advertisement

“It’s tragic and it was avoidable,” Cruz said when approached about Gorman’s death and Medina not being deported. “The Democrats are so radical they prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens.”

“It’s disgusting that these people say, ‘Oh, they act like they care about Americans.’ But then you look at their actions – they care about people who are here violently hurting Americans,” Scott complained.

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS attorney said agents in Los Angeles should have ‘started hitting’ protesters, emails show

Published

on

DHS attorney said agents in Los Angeles should have ‘started hitting’ protesters, emails show

A lead attorney for the Department of Homeland Security suggested that federal agents should have “just started hitting the rioters and arresting everyone that couldn’t get away” during an anti-ICE protest in Los Angeles last June, internal emails show.

The note was in an email chain obtained by the nonprofit watchdog group American Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act and shared exclusively with The Times.

In it, attorneys for Homeland Security appear to be discussing the June 9 lawsuit filed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom over President Trump’s deployment of thousands of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles.

Under the subject line “California DOD Lawsuit,” officials coordinated legal filings defending the Trump administration and included a draft declaration by the Los Angeles field office director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement supporting the deployment of military forces.

Advertisement

The final email in the thread was from Joseph Mazzara, then-acting DHS general counsel, and he appears to be referring to an incident in which protesters tried to breach a protective line at a federal building.

On June 11, he wrote: “Every time I read about the battering ram incident I’m just floored at how wild that is.”

Referring to law enforcement as “they,” he continued: “They should have, when they brought the line in, just started hitting the rioters and arresting everyone that couldn’t get away from them. No one likes being hit by a stick, and people tend to run when that starts happening in earnest.”

The Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Mazzara was later appointed deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Advertisement

Politico reported that Mazzara is among 10 staffers who followed former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to the State Department after she was fired this month from DHS and given a new role as special envoy for the Shield of the Americas.

The battering ram incident Mazzara referred to is detailed in court documents for the lawsuit.

A June 19 order from a panel judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals states that Trump administration attorneys presented evidence of protesters interfering with federal officers. The protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles, “pinned down” several Federal Protective Service officers and threw “concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects,” the order said.

Protesters also “used ‘large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram’ in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building,” the order states.

Mazzara’s comment in the email thread with other Homeland Security attorneys was given to American Oversight with a watermark showing the agency had intended to withhold it. American Oversight also received a version of the documents with that statement redacted.

Advertisement

Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said it’s no wonder the administration wanted to keep Mazzara’s comments hidden.

“They reveal a level of hostility toward protesters that is deeply at odds with the government’s obligation to protect civil liberties — and there’s no FOIA exemption that justifies hiding them,” she said.

Kerry Doyle, the former top ICE attorney during the Biden administration, said Mazzara’s comments show a shocking carelessness about the potential for harm against both the general public and the officers he was employed to protect.

The email, she said, “seems to encourage, or, at the very least, support constitutional violations by the operators that are supposed to be getting legal counsel from him to avoid violating the law.” Plus, commenting on operational strategy is outside the scope of his responsibilities, she said.

“He’s doing a disservice to the people that are on the front line, that rely on him and his colleagues to give them the parameters of what they can and can’t do,” Doyle added. “If you give them bad legal advice, you are setting them up for liability.”

Advertisement

Noem’s removal came amid backlash against an escalation of violence during Trump’s crackdown on immigration, including the shooting deaths of U.S. citizen protesters by immigration agents.

Doyle said part of the secretary’s job is to set the tone for the agency so the rank and file know what is expected of them. Mazzara’s comments, she said, show how that tone has permeated all facets of the agency.

After the U.S. Supreme Court cast doubt on the Trump administration’s legal theory for using troops in domestic law enforcement operations, the president in December began removing the National Guard from Los Angeles and other Democratic-led cities.

The protests last summer caused significant property damage in a small section of downtown Los Angeles. But grand juries refused to indict many demonstrators accused by federal prosecutors of attacking agents, and a Times review of alleged assaults found that most incidents resulted in no injuries.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

WATCH: Senate hearing goes silent after Angel Father confronts top Dem over daughter’s death

Published

on

WATCH: Senate hearing goes silent after Angel Father confronts top Dem over daughter’s death

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Senate hearing got tense and quiet after Illinois father Joe Abraham confronted retiring Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., for not acknowledging his daughter, Katie, who was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver.

After Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, expressed his condolences to Abraham, the grieving father thanked him and then proceeded to drill into Durbin.

“I appreciate it. I also appreciate Ranking Member Welch and Mr. Padilla for recognizing that. What I don’t understand is why my senator of Illinois, Mr. Durbin, [I] haven’t heard two words from him toward me,” he said, pointing in Durbin’s direction.

“It’s kind of amazing,” Abraham added.

Advertisement

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ACCUSED OF KILLING CHICAGO COLLEGE STUDENT TO FACE COURT AFTER TUBERCULOSIS DELAY

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Il., (left) was confronted by Angel father Joe Abraham (right) over the killing of his daughter, Katie, by an illegal immigrant. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images; U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary official website livestream)

In the suddenly quiet hearing chamber, Cruz said, “I think it is a fair question to ask.” Abraham answered, “Kind of happy he’s calling it quits.”

After the tense exchange, Abraham again called out Durbin, writing, “You had the chance to show basic humanity, to acknowledge Katie’s life and death, as other senators in your own party did. Instead, silence. Not a call, not a statement, not even basic human acknowledgment.”

Abraham stated that “silence in the face of tragedy isn’t neutrality. It’s indifference.”

Advertisement

“You’re retiring, but for many of us, that comes 30 years too late. And whoever you choose to endorse should be rejected just as quickly, because Illinois cannot afford more of the same,” he added, writing, “Illinois families deserve better than leaders who look away when the consequences don’t fit their narrative.”

He also criticized Durbin for supporting sanctuary policies, saying, “My daughter died in a system shaped by policies you continue to defend.”

“You chose sanctuary policies that give special privileges to those here illegally, while law-abiding Illinois citizens like my family are left unprotected,” wrote Abraham. “That’s not compassion. That’s a failure of leadership.”

COLLEGE STUDENT’S ALLEGED MURDER BY ILLEGAL WENT EXACTLY AS DEMS ‘INTENDED,’ HOUSE SPEAKER SAYS

Katie Abraham was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver.  (Joe Abraham )

Advertisement

Abraham’s 20-year-old daughter, Katie Abraham, was killed by an illegal immigrant in a drunk-driving incident while standing at a stoplight in the college town of Urbana, Illinois. The federal government’s immigration crackdown in the Chicago area was launched in Katie’s honor. Dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz,” the effort resulted in more than 4,500 illegal immigrant arrests, according to DHS.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Abraham, a lifelong Illinois resident, described his family as navigating a “dark wilderness” in the wake of Katie’s death.

“We have been in a dark wilderness, wandering, trying to find our new purpose … without Katie, who we thought would be with us the rest of our lives,” he said.

ANGEL PARENTS SLAM ILLINOIS SANCTUARY LAWS AFTER ‘PREVENTABLE’ TRAGEDY IN STUDENT’S DEATH

Joe Abraham holds a photograph of himself with his 20-year-old daughter, Katie Abraham, at his family’s home in Glenview, Illinois, on Sept. 10, 2025. (Stacey Wescott/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

Advertisement

“She was a beautiful soul,” he added, lamenting, “We thought we’d have our children the rest of our lives.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Addressing other Illinoisans, Abraham warned, “If anything, God forbid, happens to you, your state under this regime will turn its back on you, 100%.”

“That’s what they’ve done with us and Katie,” he said. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending