In January 2025, Arizona: In 2024 the state’s Supreme Court created a rule on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology and Large Language Models. In January 2025, the court issued an amendment to allow court personnel to make use of “non-production use” AI tools for testing and evaluation purposes only. [Source](https://perma.cc/R5U3-BZ76) | [Update](https://perma.cc/FY32-QVY4)

In June 2025, Arkansas: In June, the state’s supreme court released for comment a proposed Order to address generative artificial intelligence (GAI) use. Section 1 on Awareness requires everyone participating in the court system to be mindful when entering client or court data into any electronic system that generates responses or GAI. Section 2 on Prohibition provides that the Administrative Office of the Courts staff, all clerks of court and their staff, and others are prohibited from intentionally exposing state courts’ internal data to a GAI. The comment period ends on August 1, 2025. [Source](https://perma.cc/N3MF-RXNR)

In February 2025, Nevada: In February, the state’s supreme court created an Artificial Intelligence Guide for Courts and Judicial Officers including a 2-page AI Guide for Judicial Officers that examines what generative AI is, how it works, and how it could impact the work of judicial officers. [Source](https://perma.cc/B8F8-QNEV)

In March 2025, South Carolina: In March, the state’s supreme court issued an Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. The policy provides that: “Judicial Branch Officers and Employees may only use Generative AI tools and systems in the performance of their Judicial Branch duties that are approved by the Supreme Court or South Carolina Court Administration. Notwithstanding any general approval, supervising justices, judges, lawyers, and information technology professionals retain the authority to limit or prohibit the use of approved Generative AI tools by lawyer and nonlawyer employees under their supervision.” This initiative, titled *Interim Policy on Generative AI*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://perma.cc/3G4N-UNAN)

In March 2025, Texas: In March, the state’s Supreme Court Advisory Committee (SCAC) Rule 1-14c Subcommittee issued its update. The subcommittee concluded “that the Texas Rules of Evidence provide mechanisms to empower trial judges to adjudicate disputes regarding the authenticity, reliability or accuracy of proffered evidence, including allegations that the evidence was manipulated or faked through AI.” The subcommittee further concluded that the adoption of new rules “is more likely to result in unintended consequences and likely will not significantly reduce the risk that unrepresented parties misuse AI tools in their representations and submissions to the court.” This initiative, titled *SCAC Rule 1-14c Subcommittee Update*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://perma.cc/X452-VPJS)

In March 2025, Vermont: In March, the state’s Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts issued its first annual report describing its work, including reports from various subcommittees covering disciplinary rules, court operations, and court rules. This initiative, titled *Committee on AI and the Courts: Annual Report*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://perma.cc/3TFS-DFUE)

In May 2025, Virginia: In May, the state’s supreme court amended its existing Rules for Generative AI Use in part to reference an executive order issued by the state’s governor regarding the downloading of DeepSeek. The amendment also incorporated a new law enacted in 2025 that provides: “All decisions related to the pre-trial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, probation, parole, correctional supervision , or rehabilitation of criminal offenders shall be made by the judicial officer or other person charged with making such decision. No such decision shall be made solely on the basis of a recommendation or prediction of an artificial intelligence-based tool. The use of any such tool, recommendation, or prediction shall be subject to any challenge or objection permitted by law.” This initiative, titled *Rule Update + Law on AI & Criminal Justice*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://perma.cc/G7B8-76LB) | [Update](https://perma.cc/AAZ4-VSEA)

In February 2025, Washington: In February, the state’s Board for Judicial Administration issued a Statement of Principles. Included was language stating: “While judicial officers may increasingly use AI and other technologies to improve judicial economy, they must always employ independent judgment in making their decisions and comply with the ethical obligations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Similarly, while AI may significantly expand access and boost efficiency related to court administration, courts must zealously protect the public trust and ensure that personal information and data are securely maintained in their systems.” This initiative, titled *Board for Judicial Admin: Statement of Principles*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://perma.cc/2UFL-MH6T)

In July 2023, Office of Administrative Hearings – Chief Administrative Hearing Officer Nickels This initiative, titled *The policies manual authorizes hearing officers to require gen AI certifications at their discretion. The language of the certification is also at the hearing officers’ discretion, but the policies manual recommends certain language that would make parties check the portion of their filings drafted by gen AI for accuracy. The policies manual also allows for hearing officers to include a provision in any order to the parties with similar language to the certification. In that circumstance, the parties would not have to affirmatively include a certification. The policies manual also prohibits hearing officers from using AI in preparing orders.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/artificial-intelligence-court-order-tracker/states/idaho)

In January 1970, Montana’s new Right to Compute law sets requirements for critical infrastructure controlled by an AI system, including the development of a risk management policy aligned with NIST’s AI risk management framework. It also bars government from restricting private ownership or lawful use of computing resources unless required for compelling government interest. This initiative, titled *Requires AI risk management for infrastructure; protects private compute rights unless narrowly justified by public interest.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2025/billhtml/HB0743.htm)

In January 2024, New Jersey adopted a resolution urging generative AI companies to make voluntary commitments regarding employee whistleblower protections. This initiative, titled *Resolution encourages whistleblower protections by AI companies.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/SJR73)

In January 2024, Judiciary Guidelines This initiative, titled *The notice to the bar announcing the preliminary guidelines encourages attorneys to seek direction from the Attorney Ethics Hotline or from the court’s “Court Use of AI” mailbox. In this same section, the court previewed “future, more detailed guidance” to come by advising lawyers that their inquiries may inform the development of such future guidance.

These guidelines aim to assist lawyers in complying with existing RPCs, providing preliminary guidelines that may be supplemented with more detailed guidelines as AI’s capabilities, limits, and risks become clearer.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf)

In January 2024, Guidelines from New Jersey Supreme Court Issues Guidance on Use of AI in Courts This initiative, titled *The Committee’s preliminary guidance focused on five categories of RPCs:

Accuracy and Truthfulness: Because AI can generate false information, a lawyer has an ethical duty to check and verify all information generated by AI to ensure that it is accurate.

Honesty, Candor, and Communication: While the RPCs do not require a lawyer to disclose the use of AI, such use does not provide an excuse for the submission of false, fake, or misleading content. The RPCs prohibit a lawyer from using AI to manipulate or create evidence and prohibit a lawyer from allowing a client to use AI to manipulate or create evidence.

Confidentiality: A lawyer is responsible to ensure the security of an AI system before entering any non-public client information.

Misconduct Prevention: Lawyers have ongoing requirements to ensure accuracy (and avoid falsification) of communications with clients and the court.

Oversight: Law firms and lawyers are responsible for ensuring the ethical use of AI by other lawyers and nonlawyer staff.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/notice-legal-practice-preliminary-guidelines-use-of-artificial-intelligence-new-jersey)

In January 1970, New York enacted a new law requiring state agencies to publish information about their automated decision-making tools via a centralized public inventory. It also amends Civil Service Law to ensure AI does not override collective bargaining rights or lead to workforce displacement. This initiative, titled *Mandates transparency in government AI tools and protects civil service job rights from AI disruption.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7543)

In June 2024, New York Bar This initiative, titled *The June 2024 report by the New York City Bar Association, titled “Artificial Intelligence and the New York State Judiciary,” outlines a set of recommendations for responsibly integrating AI into the state court system. It urges the judiciary to explore AI through carefully designed pilot programs, particularly in areas like document analysis, case summarization, and administrative workflows. The report emphasizes that any use of AI must preserve judicial independence and remain under human oversight. It cautions against over-reliance and highlights the risks of automation bias, recommending strict ethical, transparency, and data security standards. Ultimately, the report advocates for a measured and transparent approach to AI adoption, one that enhances efficiency while safeguarding fairness, impartiality, and due process.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.nycbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/20221290_AI_NYS_Judiciary.pdf)

In an unspecified date, Judicial Council’s AI Task Force (SP25-01) This initiative, titled *In early 2025, California’s Judicial Council—through its Artificial Intelligence Task Force—proposed a new Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80 to regulate generative AI use by court staff and judges. Recognizing AI’s potential for administrative efficiency, the proposal emphasizes rigorous oversight to mitigate risks related to confidentiality, bias, accuracy, and data security. Under Rule 10.430, any court permitting AI must adopt a written policy barring the input of confidential or nonpublic information into public AI systems, forbidding discriminatory use, and requiring human review of AI-generated materials for accuracy, bias, and completeness. It also requires courts to disclose when AI substantially contributes to publicly published content and to comply with all relevant legal and ethical standards. Standard 10.80 mirrors these rules for judicial officers performing adjudicative duties, emphasizing compliance with ethical codes and human judgment. A model policy is provided for courts to tailor and adopt. The goal is to foster responsible innovation while preserving fairness, accountability, and public trust—effective September 1, 2025—with feedback invited from courts ahead of implementation.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://courts.ca.gov/system/files/itc/sp25-01_0.pdf)

In January 2025, USDC ND CA Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín wrote “Any submission containing AI-generated content must include a certification that lead trial counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy.” [Source](https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/artificial-intelligence-or-innocent-ignorance-hard-lessons-yield-best-practices/)

In January 2024, Local This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](San Diego County Superior Court:ﺁ ﺁ In Regards to Procedure Regulating Photography, Recording, and Broadcasting in Courthouse)

In January 2024, Local This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Orange County Superior Court: Dept. C31 Standing Order Regarding Artificial Intelligence)

In February 2025, Statewide This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Judicial Council of California Model Policy for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence: Preview of New Model Policy)

In June 2024, Statewide. No summary available currently. [Source](https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/Grimm.pdf)

In July 2023, Connecticut: Under Public Act 23-16, effective July 1, 2023, all state agencies, including the Judicial Branch, are required to follow statewide artificial intelligence governance practices. This includes conducting risk assessments before deploying high-risk AI systems, maintaining transparency about automated decision-making tools, and ensuring human oversight. The law establishes a centralized framework for evaluating AI use in government operations, and the Judicial Branch is explicitly listed among participating entities. This initiative, titled *Connecticut: Under Public Act 23-16 (effective July 1, 2023), the Judicial Branch participates in statewide AI policies and risk assessment procedures.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/ACT/PA/PDF/2023PA-00016-R00HB-06936-PA.PDF)

In February 2024, Statewide This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Policies and Procedures)

In July 2024, The Maryland judiciary, under statewide rule-making, will be subject to both mandates:

No deployment of new AI without state-level approval starting in July 2025.

Any use of high-risk AI requires formal policies or procedures to guide its responsible implementation and oversight. This initiative, titled *The Maryland judiciary, along with all other state agencies, will be subject to two new statutory mandates regarding artificial intelligence. Under Md. Code, State Government § 10-1303, beginning July 1, 2025, no unit of state government may procure or use any new AI system unless it has first received approval from the State’s AI oversight body. This law ensures centralized vetting of all AI technologies before they are introduced into public-sector workflows. Separately, Md. Code, State Government § 10-1304 requires that any “high-risk AI system”—defined as one that significantly impacts legal rights, critical services, or public safety—must be governed by documented policies and procedures. These must be adopted before such systems are deployed, to ensure proper accountability, transparency, and ethical compliance in their use. Both provisions apply to Maryland courts and court administration as part of the broader state apparatus.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Document/N3EC694A0351D11EF97F0A3407294726C?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) | [Update](Both § 10‑1303 and § 10‑1304 were enacted by the Maryland General Assembly during the 2024 legislative session, and signed into law by the Governor:)

In an unspecified date, Statewide This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Maryland Judiciary Guidelines for the Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools and Platforms)

In March 2025, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Artificial Intelligence Policy, effective March 11, 2025, establishes comprehensive rules for the use of AI—particularly Generative AI—by state employees, contractors, and third-party vendors across all agencies under the Governor’s jurisdiction. It mandates that agencies conduct readiness assessments, data quality checks, and risk analyses before implementing AI systems. AI must not be used to make autonomous decisions in high-impact areas like employment, public safety, or citizen services without human oversight. Agencies must retain audit logs, disclose AI use in public-facing outputs, and validate all AI-generated content. The policy strictly prohibits inputting sensitive, confidential, or regulated data into public AI tools, and bars the use of Generative AI for decisions affecting personnel. Approved use cases include drafting, summarizing, and translating content—provided the output is verified by qualified personnel. Public Generative AI tools may only be used if approved by the Commonwealth and must adhere to privacy controls, including disabling chat history and opting out of data sharing. Violations require formal policy exceptions. The policy reflects Pennsylvania’s cautious, risk-managed approach to integrating AI into government operations. This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/oa/documents/policies/it-policies/artificial%20intelligence%20policy.pdf)

In an unspecified date, Statewide This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence: Judicial Reference Sheet)

In an unspecified date, Statewide This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence)

In an unspecified date, Local This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Toledo Municipal Court AI Policy: Personnel Policies)

In an unspecified date, Statewide – Applicable to Judicial using state data This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://governor.kansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/P8200.00-Generative-Artificial-Intelligence-Signed.pdf)

In an unspecified date, Statewide – Applicable to Judicial using state data This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Generative Artificial Intelligence Standard for the Office of Information and Technology Services)

In an unspecified date, Statewide This initiative, titled *Guidelines and Policies*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](Supreme Court Letter Issues Letter Discussing Artificial Intelligence)

In January 2025, Alabama: In January 2025, the Alabama Office of Information Technology issued the “Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy” to guide the use of AI across state agencies. The policy mandates that all generative AI usage involving state data must be authorized, reviewed, and monitored by designated security and IT personnel. It prohibits entering confidential, regulated, or sensitive data into public AI platforms, requires human review of all outputs, and obligates users to clearly label AI-generated public-facing content. Judicial agencies using state networks or systems are implicitly covered under the policy’s scope. This initiative, titled *Alabama: In January 2025, the state released a Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy requiring human oversight, privacy safeguards, and restricted use of public AI tools. While not judiciary-specific, the policy applies to any agency using state IT infrastructure, including courts.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://oit.alabama.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Alabama-Generative-AI-Acceptable-Use-Policy.pdf)

In October 2024, Georgia: In October 2024, Chief Justice Michael Boggs of the Georgia Supreme Court established the Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts. The 16-member committee—composed of judges, clerks, legal counsel, and court administrators—is tasked with evaluating the risks, benefits, and ethical considerations surrounding AI use in the judiciary. The committee will study how AI might enhance or compromise court operations, with recommendations expected in 2025. While no formal policy has been adopted yet, this represents Georgia’s first judiciary-led initiative to address AI governance in the courts. This initiative, titled *Georgia: In October 2024, the Georgia Supreme Court formed an Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts to evaluate risks and develop judicial guidance. A full policy is pending.*, represents a notable step in state-level AI governance within the judicial system. [Source](https://www.gasupreme.us/10-22-2024-chief-justice-establishes-committee-to-examine-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-on-the-judiciary/)

Technologies policy related to state data use, applicable to judicial using state systems and data.[Source](https://mm.nh.gov/files/uploads/doit/documents/sonh-use-of-artificial-intelligence-technologies-policy.pdf)

• Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming: I found no published judicial or court-administered AI guidelines as of early 2025.