reportAI in CourtsAI Governance
Where justice systems use AI: 595 official records as of 7 September 2026
595 official justice-sector AI records in 17 jurisdiction codes: 351 DOJ rows, 98 Brazil rows and 31 Netherlands rows as of 7 September 2026.
Edited and verified by Cognesio LLP
Researched with AI assistance · sources verified by Cognesio LLP · How this was made ↓
As of 7 September 2026, the SafeLegalAI public-sector register records 595 official records in 17 country, territory or EU codes for AI used, piloted or procured by justice bodies: courts, judiciaries, prosecutors, public defenders, legal-aid bodies, tribunals, justice ministries, corrections agencies, police-forensics bodies and court administrators. The United States supplies 412 rows, including 351 rows from Department of Justice AI inventories; the United Kingdom supplies 21 rows from Algorithmic Transparency Records, Ministry of Justice announcements, court announcements, HMPPS records, Cafcass records and prosecution policy.
The record is not a count of every system inside justice. It is a count of public records. It shows which bodies chose inventory entries, transparency records, procurement notices, official announcements, pilot reports, judgements or policies as the public form for saying what AI they use, test, plan or have stopped.
Key findings
- On 7 September 2026 the official record held 595 entries from 17 country, territory or EU codes; 585 were read from the official record, 10 carried an official link not yet read, and the read set came from 100 primary source URLs.
- The United States supplied 412 of the 595 justice-sector records on 7 September 2026, including 351 Department of Justice rows collected from the 2024 and 2025 AI inventories; the live 2025 DOJ spreadsheet contained 314 use-case rows, while this release held 301 DOJ rows dated 2025.
- The DOJ rows in the register contained 92 generative-AI rows on 7 September 2026, which is 26.2 percent of the 351 DOJ rows; the dataset status words were 155 “Deployed”, 103 “Pre-deployment”, 25 “Pilot”, 26 “Retired”, 32 “Operation and Maintenance”, 6 “Acquisition and/or Development” and 4 “Initiated”.
- Brazil supplied the second-largest national block on 7 September 2026, with 98 justice-system records: one CNJ policy, five announcements and 92 CNJ survey entries from 56 tribunals.
- The Netherlands supplied 31 justice-family algorithm-register rows on 7 September 2026; none was coded generative AI, while 13 were analytics and 10 were risk assessment.
- The United Kingdom supplied 21 justice-family records on 7 September 2026, including 9 Algorithmic Transparency Records, 9 official announcements, 2 pilot reports and 1 prosecution policy.
- Four official court records disclosed judicial AI use by 20 February 2025: Snell, Deleon, Ross v United States and Colombia’s T-323/24.
- Judicial and justice-body governance appeared in 27 policy or judicial-conduct records on 7 September 2026, including US federal guidance, 18 US state or local policy rows, two US judicial-conduct opinions and six non-US policy rows.
Why this question
Justice-sector AI is often described through rules: what judges, lawyers or court staff may put into a tool, what they must verify, and whether they must tell parties. Those rules matter, but they are only half the official record. The other half is the public inventory: named systems, status labels and use cases.
The labels matter.
This report answers a narrower question than the policy debate. It asks what official inventories, transparency registers, procurement portals, court announcements and judgements say justice bodies actually use, pilot, plan, procure or retire as of 7 September 2026. A separate SafeLegalAI report covers the rules that bind judges’ AI use and the adjudicator hallucination cases: the bench’s record. This report does not repeat that analysis. It follows the deployment record.
The question is practical. A ministry policy may say a model may not decide a case. A public inventory says whether the same ministry has a tool for triage, transcription, redaction, identity matching, searching prison reports, drafting minutes, summarising case files or supporting court listing. A contract award says money has been committed. A pilot report says a test happened. A judgement disclosure says the court used a model in a live opinion. Those are different records, and this dataset keeps them apart.
Method and data
The dataset is the SafeLegalAI public-sector register, browsable at /public-sector, by body at pages such as /public-sector/body/us-doj-dea, by country at pages such as /public-sector/country/us, exported at /public-sector.json, and released on GitHub at github.com/SafeLegalAI/justice-ai-deployments. Each row records the body, country, record type, tool or use case, AI kind, source status phrase, date, any published money figure, summary, quote, licence, judge name where printed, source URL, archive URL and verification note.
Every number in this report is computed by the Python script reproduced in the run log. Body type, record type and AI kind use the labels on the public-sector pages. Country names use the site country map. The dataset manifest records 595 rows and no rejected rows.
Status words are the source’s own status words on the read date. They are never upgraded. A pilot is not a deployment. A contract or procurement notice is not use. A row whose source says “to be developed and tested” is reported that way, even where later work is expected.
The DOJ 2024 and 2025 inventories were both read. The live 2025 DOJ spreadsheet contained 314 public use-case rows, with 163 “Deployed”, 107 “Pre-deployment”, 25 “Pilot” and 19 “Retired”. This register held the rows collected on 7 September 2026: 50 DOJ rows dated 2024 and 301 dated 2025. It does not claim to be the full live spreadsheet. Matching on component and use-case name found one exact repeat, ProLaw in the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, so the two dated source entries are retained; product names used by different components remain separate component records.
Published money figures are kept as published and are never summed across currencies. The dataset has three TED rows with a published amount, shown in Appendix A only. The TED notices were readable when the register was built; a later fact-check met a WAF challenge and found no Wayback capture for the three TED notice URLs.
Licences remain source-specific. US federal inventory rows are treated as US federal public-domain material; US court opinions are public-domain court opinions; UK government material is recorded under OGL v3 where the source carries that status; EU procurement notices carry EU reuse terms; Brazil, Colombia, China and several judiciary policies are official acts or quoted-short records. The dataset’s SafeLegalAI coding is CC BY 4.0. Ten rows have an official link recorded but are not quoted as read primary text. There are no rows read from public mirrors in this public-sector dataset.
CEPEJ, the National Center for State Courts and the AI Incident Database were lead sources only. No table below is counted from those sources.
| Verification status | Rows |
|---|---|
| Read from the official record | 585 |
| Official link recorded, text not quoted | 10 |
| Read from a public mirror | 0 |
The DOJ inventory is the largest block
The United States DOJ rows make the register look different from the public-facing court record: most rows are not judge-facing tools, but component inventory entries for investigations, prisons, prosecution, administration, immigration adjudication and department-wide services. The DOJ register subset has 351 rows, 92 generative-AI rows and seven dataset status words. One table drives the section.
| DOJ component | Rows | Generative AI |
|---|---|---|
| Drug Enforcement Administration | 55 | 18 |
| Federal Bureau of Investigation | 48 | 11 |
| Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives | 39 | 3 |
| Federal Bureau of Prisons | 38 | 6 |
| Department-wide | 20 | 3 |
| United States Marshals Service | 18 | 7 |
| Civil Division | 17 | 3 |
| Tax Division | 14 | 4 |
| Antitrust Division | 10 | 7 |
| Justice Management Division / Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces | 10 | 4 |
| All other DOJ components | 82 | 26 |
By body type, the DOJ rows are concentrated in police and forensics: 164 of 351. Prosecutors account for 66 rows, other justice agencies for 48, corrections and probation for 45, justice ministry rows for 20 and tribunal or adjudicator rows for 8. The 8 tribunal rows are the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
| DOJ body type | Rows |
|---|---|
| Police and forensics | 164 |
| Prosecution service | 66 |
| Other justice agency | 48 |
| Corrections and probation | 45 |
| Justice ministry | 20 |
| Tribunal or adjudicator | 8 |
The DOJ AI-kind distribution is not a generative-AI-only record. Generative AI is the largest single kind, but it is 92 of 351 rows, or 26.2 percent. Document automation has 55 rows, analytics 53, search and retrieval 46, risk assessment 24, transcription 18, NLP / classification 18, not specified 17, translation 12, other 7, chatbot 6 and record linkage 3.
| DOJ AI kind | Rows |
|---|---|
| Generative AI | 92 |
| Document automation | 55 |
| Analytics | 53 |
| Search and retrieval | 46 |
| Risk assessment | 24 |
| Transcription | 18 |
| NLP / classification | 18 |
| Not specified | 17 |
| Translation | 12 |
| Other | 7 |
| Chatbot | 6 |
| Record linkage | 3 |
The source status words show a working inventory, a pipeline and a retirement list. DOJ supplies 155 “Deployed” rows and 103 “Pre-deployment” rows. It also supplies 25 “Pilot” rows and 26 “Retired” rows. The remaining DOJ status words are “Operation and Maintenance” for 32 rows, “Acquisition and/or Development” for 6 and “Initiated” for 4.
| DOJ status as stated | Rows |
|---|---|
| Deployed | 155 |
| Pre-deployment | 103 |
| Operation and Maintenance | 32 |
| Retired | 26 |
| Pilot | 25 |
| Acquisition and/or Development | 6 |
| Initiated | 4 |
The named use cases show what those categories mean in the department’s own words. The FBI writing assistant, sourced to the DOJ AI inventory, is pre-deployment and generative AI; the public-domain inventory quote is “Quality and consistency of written comments”. The ATF Veritone Redact row is deployed and generative AI; the official sentence says, “The purpose of the AI use case in Veritone Redact is to support ATF in processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by automating the redaction of sensitive information within audio and video files.”
The Office of the Pardon Attorney voicemail row is a pilot, not a deployment. Its official sentence says, “PARDON would like to leverage transcription, translation and summarization services available in the GCC high cloud environment to help reduce the processing time and level of effort associated with responding to voicemail inquiries.” The department-wide Westlaw AI-assisted legal research row is deployed and search/retrieval; the official quote says it “Addresses manual process of conducting legal research.”
Other DOJ rows are plainly operational but not legal drafting. The USMS video transcription tool is deployed transcription; the quote says USMS uses open-source NLP and Python code to transcribe audio or video into text. The Bureau of Prisons Wellsaid row is deployed generative AI; the inventory says, “AI converts text to speech audio that is used in social media, training videos, and audiobooks.” These are official records of use, not claims about outcomes.
The UK record mixes transparency records, ministry announcements and court work
The United Kingdom set has 21 rows. Nine are Algorithmic Transparency Records, nine are official announcements, two are pilot reports and one is a prosecution policy. The set includes MoJ, OPG, HMPPS, HMCTS, the Probation Service, Cafcass, CPS, COPFS and the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. It is a family record, not one inventory.
| UK record type | Rows |
|---|---|
| Transparency record | 9 |
| Official announcement | 9 |
| Pilot report | 2 |
| Internal policy | 1 |
The 2026 rows show pre-deployment, equipped staff, tests and studies. The OPG Investigations AI Assistant row is an Algorithmic Transparency Record dated 7 August 2026 and has the status “pre-deployment”; the official record says the assistant is for investigations work. The Justice Transcribe announcement records that “every probation officer in England and Wales has been equipped with Justice Transcribe” and is sourced to the 8 June 2026 justice tech announcement.
The same 8 June 2026 announcement supplies two other rows. The AI legal assistants row is generative AI with status “to be developed and tested”; it is not counted as deployed. The HMCTS trial-listing support tool row is analytics with status “new AI tool”. The AI court transcription study, from a 13 April 2026 HMCTS announcement, is a study and is recorded as “new study will explore”.
The 2025 UK records show the difference between an ATR and a programme announcement. The nDelius contact log semantic search row is an ATR with “public-beta” status and the official ATR says it helps probation practitioners find information within offender reports. The Splink master record and Data First Splink rows are record-linkage records, both linked to official transparency records.
HMPPS supplies a production risk-assessment row, a production NLP/classification row, an announcement about scanned prison phones and a pilot report on prison education content. The Violence in Prisons Estimator row is a production Algorithmic Transparency Record. The Key Work quality assurance automation row is also a production ATR. The digital education content pilots row is a pilot report and remains coded as a pilot report.
UK rows that name courts or judges are sparse. The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary Microsoft 365 Copilot row, sourced to the AI Action Plan for Justice, records leadership judges as a rollout group. The HMCTS intelligent document processing pilot concerns paper forms, not adjudication. The COPFS policy is a prosecution policy; the official page says, “AI will support our work, but it won’t make decisions or replace the judgement of our skilled people.”
| Selected UK rows | Body | Status as stated | AI kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| OPG Investigations AI Assistant | Office of the Public Guardian | pre-deployment | Document automation |
| Justice Transcribe | The Probation Service | equipped | Transcription |
| AI legal assistants for justice staff and professionals | Ministry of Justice | to be developed and tested | Generative AI |
| AI trial-listing support tool | HMCTS | new AI tool | Analytics |
| nDelius contact log semantic search | Ministry of Justice | public-beta | Search and retrieval |
| Correspondence Drafting Tool | Crown Prosecution Service | beta-pilot | Generative AI |
| Violence in Prisons Estimator | HMPPS | production | Risk assessment |
| Cafcass Genesys chatbot | Cafcass | production | Chatbot |
Brazil and the Netherlands show two register models
Brazil and the Netherlands together provide 129 rows, but the public records are different. Brazil’s block is a CNJ survey of tribunal projects, plus CNJ policy and court announcements. The Netherlands block is a national algorithm-register slice across justice, police, child-protection, legal-aid and forensic bodies. Both keep source status labels.
Brazil has 98 rows in the register. The CNJ survey subset has 92 entries from 56 tribunals. It records 56 generative-AI rows, 17 search/retrieval rows, 12 NLP/classification rows, 3 transcription rows, 2 chatbot rows, 1 analytics row and 1 risk-assessment row. It also records project stage in Portuguese.
| Brazil CNJ survey status as stated | Rows |
|---|---|
| Finalizado e em produção / uso | 38 |
| Em desenvolvimento | 25 |
| Em teste | 14 |
| Finalizado, mas não está em produção | 6 |
| Concepção (ideação e planejamento) | 5 |
| Finalizado, aguardando autorização para entrar em produção / uso | 4 |
The CNJ rows should not be recoded into English maturity stages. “Finalizado e em produção / uso” is counted as the source phrase. “Em desenvolvimento” is not turned into production. The CNJ examples include DEGRAVA at TRT8, a transcription row in production/use; GALILEU at TRT4, a generative-AI row in production/use; and GERADOR DE EMENTAS TJSP, a TJSP generative-AI row in production/use.
The policy row is separate. CNJ Resolution 615/2025, linked to the CNJ official PDF, is a policy row with the source status phrase “RESOLVE”. That is a governance record, not one of the 92 project entries.
| Brazil CNJ survey AI kind | Rows |
|---|---|
| Generative AI | 56 |
| Search and retrieval | 17 |
| NLP / classification | 12 |
| Transcription | 3 |
| Chatbot | 2 |
| Analytics | 1 |
| Risk assessment | 1 |
The Netherlands set is 31 national algorithm-register rows. It contains no generative-AI rows in this release. The largest kinds are analytics (13) and risk assessment (10), followed by search and retrieval (4), document automation (2), NLP/classification (1) and other (1). The main bodies are the Nederlands Forensisch Instituut (7), Politie (6), Raad voor de Kinderbescherming (6), Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid (5), Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen (3), Raad voor Rechtsbijstand (3) and Justis (1).
| Netherlands body | Rows |
|---|---|
| Nederlands Forensisch Instituut | 7 |
| Politie | 6 |
| Raad voor de Kinderbescherming | 6 |
| Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid | 5 |
| Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen | 3 |
| Raad voor Rechtsbijstand | 3 |
| Justis | 1 |
The named Netherlands rows show what the national register exposes. Sextortion Classifier is a Politie NLP/classification row. Zoekapplicatie cold cases is search/retrieval and says the algorithm helps find information in cold-case files. Module Zorg is a Raad voor de Kinderbescherming risk-assessment row. Automatische gezichtsbeeldvergelijking is an NFI analytics row for facial image comparison.
Other official records show translation, scheduling, chatbots, procurement and judicial tools
Outside the three largest country blocks and the UK, the register has 33 rows across Estonia, India, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, China, Singapore, Norway, Colombia, Germany, Hong Kong, the European Union, Malaysia and Argentina. The rows are small in count but specific in function: translation, transcription, scheduling, legal chatbots, procurement, summaries and judicial assistants.
India’s five rows are from Supreme Court and eCourts records. SUPACE is coded search/retrieval with the status phrase “experimental stage of development for its testing”. AI/ML judgement translation records translation from English to 18 Indian languages. AI/ML e-filing defect identification is document automation and says AI and ML tools were developed and deployed inside e-filing. Constitution Bench transcription records transcription used for oral arguments, and eCourts Phase III intelligent scheduling records AI used to recommend scheduling.
Singapore’s two Small Claims Tribunals rows are generative summarisation and translation. The case summarisation row, linked to a Singapore Courts announcement, says the tool summarises case documents for Tribunal Magistrates and self-represented individuals. The document-translation row records generative-AI translations for Chinese, Malay and Tamil court documents.
The UAE’s four Ministry of Justice rows are service descriptions: Virtual Legal Advisor, Virtual Family Advisor, Digital Agencies smart OCR and Ask Adel. They are coded chatbot or document automation. The source phrase is “Service Description”, so the table does not infer usage stage beyond that label.
China’s three rows include the Supreme People’s Court legal AI platform, sourced to an official court page, and the 2022 opinions, sourced to the SPC English page. The platform quote is “digital assistant of judges”; the 2022 policy quote is “rulings must always be made by judges”. Those two claims sit side by side in the official record.
Spain’s five Ministry of Justice rows include plain-language conversion, judicial-resolution summaries, judicial-hearing transcription, DELFOS search and an AI-use policy. Estonia’s five RIK rows include court-ruling anonymisation, court-document labelling, hearing transcription, prison e-services face recognition and e-Notary identity recognition.
Procurement rows are rare. Norway’s Digital Courts framework is recorded both as procurement notice and contract award, both from TED. The EU DrugDetect award records automatic drug detection in correctional institutions and prisons. The three TED amount fields stay in their currencies and appear only in Appendix A.
The one-row jurisdictions add older and narrower records. Argentina’s PROMETEA row records a public-prosecution document-automation system; Malaysia’s AiCOS row records sentence recommendations in Sabah and Sarawak; Germany’s court-file structuring assistant is a contract-award row; Hong Kong’s guidelines are a judiciary policy row.
Court-disclosure and policy rows are a small but distinct category
The register has four judgement-disclosure rows. They are not policies and they are not party misconduct records. They are cases in which the court record states the court’s own AI use or a reviewing court records a judge’s AI use. The register names judges only where the opinion itself does.
| Date | Record | Court | Judge named in record | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-05-28 | LLM ordinary-meaning research in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Co. | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | NEWSOM | disclosed in concurrence |
| 2024-08-02 | ChatGPT 3.5 use in tutela decision | Juzgado del Circuito de Cartagena | hizo uso de IA | |
| 2024-09-05 | LLM ordinary-meaning research in United States v. Deleon | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | NEWSOM | disclosed in concurrence |
| 2025-02-20 | ChatGPT references and judicial-use discussion in Ross v. United States | District of Columbia Court of Appeals | SHANKER; HOWARD; DEAHL | disclosed in opinion |
The Snell row, linked to the Eleventh Circuit PDF, records a concurrence that asks what ChatGPT thinks about ordinary meaning. The Deleon row, linked to the Eleventh Circuit PDF, records LLM research in another concurrence. The Ross row, linked to the D.C. Court of Appeals PDF, records ChatGPT use discussed by the majority and dissent.
Colombia’s T-323/24 row, linked to the Constitutional Court judgement, records that a Cartagena tutela judge “hizo uso de IA para emitir su decisión, en específico, de ChatGPT 3.5”. That row is coded as generative AI and a judgement disclosure. It is separate from Colombia’s Copilot transcription and act-drafting row, which is an implemented inventory entry by the judicial branch digital unit.
The policy and conduct rows are separate again. There are 25 policy rows and 2 judicial-conduct opinion rows. The US portion includes federal Administrative Office guidance, 18 state or local policy rows and two conduct opinions. The verification caveat matters here: Arizona’s 30 October 2024 generative-AI order, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington have official links recorded but are not quoted as read primary text in this report.
What to watch
The next changes to this register should come from inventories, not only rules. The DOJ inventory is annual; a later DOJ release would show which “Pre-deployment” and “Pilot” rows moved, stayed or disappeared. The UK Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard is updated record by record, so OPG’s pre-deployment assistant, CPS’s beta pilot and nDelius public beta are the rows to re-check first.
Brazil’s CNJ survey status words are another watch list. Thirty-eight CNJ survey rows say “Finalizado e em produção / uso”, but 25 say “Em desenvolvimento”, 14 say “Em teste” and 4 say “Finalizado, aguardando autorização para entrar em produção / uso”. Any future CNJ publication can be matched row by row against those phrases.
Procurement records need a different test. Norway’s Digital Courts framework and the EU DrugDetect award are purchase records; the next public record may be an award notice, a call-off, an implementation note or nothing. They should not be merged with live-use rows without a later source.
The judgement-disclosure category is small. If more courts disclose their own use of LLMs in opinions, those rows should remain separate from policies and from misconduct incidents. The useful question is not whether a court mentioned AI. It is whether the court used it, what for, and how the opinion says that use was checked.
Appendix A — data tables
Country table
| Country | Code | Rows | Generative AI | Inventory / register / survey rows |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | US | 412 | 116 | 376 |
| Brazil | BR | 98 | 56 | 92 |
| Netherlands | NL | 31 | 0 | 31 |
| United Kingdom | GB | 21 | 5 | 9 |
| Estonia | EE | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| India | IN | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Spain | ES | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| United Arab Emirates | AE | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| China | CN | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Singapore | SG | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Norway | NO | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Colombia | CO | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Germany | DE | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Hong Kong | HK | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| European Union | EU | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Malaysia | MY | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Argentina | AR | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Body type table
| Body type | Rows |
|---|---|
| Police and forensics | 177 |
| Tribunal or adjudicator | 79 |
| Court | 69 |
| Prosecution service | 69 |
| Other justice agency | 58 |
| Corrections and probation | 56 |
| Justice ministry | 41 |
| Judiciary | 22 |
| Court administration | 21 |
| Legal aid body | 3 |
Record type table
| Record type | Rows |
|---|---|
| Use-case inventory entry | 412 |
| Official survey entry | 92 |
| Official announcement | 44 |
| Internal policy | 25 |
| Transparency record | 9 |
| Court discloses its own AI use | 4 |
| Contract award | 3 |
| Pilot report | 3 |
| Judicial-conduct opinion | 2 |
| Procurement notice | 1 |
AI kind table
| AI kind | Rows |
|---|---|
| Generative AI | 185 |
| Analytics | 80 |
| Search and retrieval | 77 |
| Document automation | 69 |
| Risk assessment | 40 |
| NLP / classification | 35 |
| Not specified | 32 |
| Transcription | 27 |
| Chatbot | 19 |
| Translation | 14 |
| Other | 11 |
| Record linkage | 6 |
DOJ component table
Source status words with more than one row
The complete script output records 97 distinct source status strings. The table below gives the 20 status strings that appear more than once; the 77 single-use strings are in the run log.
| Status as stated | Rows |
|---|---|
| Deployed | 155 |
| Pre-deployment | 103 |
| Operation and Maintenance | 49 |
| Finalizado e em produção / uso | 38 |
| In gebruik | 31 |
| Retired | 30 |
| Pilot | 25 |
| Em desenvolvimento | 25 |
| Em teste | 14 |
| Acquisition and/or Development | 7 |
| production | 6 |
| Initiated | 6 |
| Finalizado, mas não está em produção | 6 |
| Concepção (ideação e planejamento) | 5 |
| currently used | 4 |
| Service Description | 4 |
| Finalizado, aguardando autorização para entrar em produção / uso | 4 |
| Interim Policy | 2 |
| can-standard | 2 |
| disclosed in concurrence | 2 |
Policy and conduct-opinion table
| Country / state | Date | Record | Type | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2025-03-11 | Resolução CNJ n. 615/2025 AI governance | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| China | 2022-12-12 | Opinions on AI application in judicial fields | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| Spain | 2024 | Policy on the use of AI in the Administration of Justice | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United Kingdom | 2025-11-13 | Internal policy for AI use by prosecution staff | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| Hong Kong | 2024-07 | Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| India | 2022-11-26 | eCourts Phase III intelligent scheduling | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States | 2025 | Interim guidance for Judiciary use of AI tools | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Arizona | 2024-01-24 | Administrative Order No. 2024-33 establishing the AI and Courts steering committee | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Arizona | 2024-03-27 | Administrative Order No. 2024-011 establishing an Artificial Intelligence Committee | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Arizona | 2024-10-30 | Administrative Order No. 2024-207 on use of generative AI in the judicial branch | Internal policy | Official link recorded, text not quoted |
| United States — California | 2025-09-01 | Rule 10.430 generative artificial intelligence use policies | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Connecticut | 2024-02-01 | JBAPPM Policy 1013 Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use Framework | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Connecticut | 2026-08-10 | Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System final report | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Delaware | 2024-10-21 | Interim Policy on the Use of GenAI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Florida | 2026-01-15 | Administrative Order No. 26-04 disclosure of generative AI in court filings | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Illinois | 2025-01-01 | Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Illinois | 2025-01-01 | Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy Judicial Reference Sheet | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Kansas | 2025-02-27 | Administrative Order 2025-CM-017 establishing an artificial intelligence committee | Internal policy | Official link recorded, text not quoted |
| United States — Louisiana | 2025-10-03 | Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines for the judiciary | Internal policy | Read from the official record |
| United States — Massachusetts | 2025-11-12 | Interim guidelines for use of Generative AI by judges and court personnel | Internal policy | Official link recorded, text not quoted |
| United States — Michigan | 2023-10-27 | Ethics Opinion JI-155 on judicial technology competence and AI | Judicial-conduct opinion | Read from the official record |
| United States — Nevada | 2025 | AI Guide for Judicial Officers | Internal policy | Official link recorded, text not quoted |
| United States — New York | 2025-10 | Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence | Internal policy | Official link recorded, text not quoted |
| United States — Pennsylvania | 2025-09-09 | Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel | Internal policy | Official link recorded, text not quoted |
| United States — Virginia | 2025-05-07 | Supreme Court of Virginia Rules for Generative AI Use | Internal policy | Official link recorded, text not quoted |
| United States — Washington | 2025 | Board for Judicial Administration AI Statement of Principles | Internal policy | Official link recorded, text not quoted |
| United States — West Virginia | 2023 | Judges’ use of artificial intelligence — JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 | Judicial-conduct opinion | Read from the official record |
Judgement-disclosure table
| Date | Country / state | Record | Judge named |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-05-28 | United States | LLM ordinary-meaning research in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Co. | NEWSOM |
| 2024-08-02 | Colombia | ChatGPT 3.5 use in tutela decision | |
| 2024-09-05 | United States | LLM ordinary-meaning research in United States v. Deleon | NEWSOM |
| 2025-02-20 | United States — District of Columbia | ChatGPT references and judicial-use discussion in Ross v. United States | SHANKER; HOWARD; DEAHL |
Published money figure rows
| Record | Country | Record type | Amount as published on TED when register built | Currency | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT development services framework for Digital Courts | Norway | Contract award | 640,000,000 | NOK | 2025-09-03 |
| IT development services framework for Digital Courts | Norway | Procurement notice | 640,000,000 | NOK | 2025-03-27 |
| Automatic drug detection in correctional institutions and prisons | European Union | Contract award | 2,480,000 | EUR | 2024-02-29 |
Sources
Primary documents and official records cited above:
- Nederlands Forensisch Instituut, 2024-06-25: https://algoritmes.overheid.nl/nl/algoritme/21725917 (1 cited row).
- Politie, 2024-11: https://algoritmes.overheid.nl/nl/algoritme/32766963 (1 cited row).
- Raad voor de Kinderbescherming, 2024-10: https://algoritmes.overheid.nl/nl/algoritme/82123374 (1 cited row).
- Politie, 2024-09: https://algoritmes.overheid.nl/nl/algoritme/93597496 (1 cited row).
- Conselho Nacional de Justiça, 2025-03-11: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/files/original1555302025031467d4517244566.pdf (1 cited row).
- e-Committee, Supreme Court of India, 2022-11-26: https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s388ef51f0bf911e452e8dbb1d807a81ab/uploads/2023/04/2023042088.pdf (1 cited row).
- Judicial Council of California, 2025-09-01: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430 (1 cited row).
- Delaware Supreme Court, 2024-10-21: https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848 (1 cited row).
- Courts of Sabah and Sarawak, 2020-01-18: https://ekss-portal.kehakiman.gov.my/portals/web/home/article_view/0/5/1 (1 cited row).
- Supreme People’s Court, 2022-12-12: https://english.court.gov.cn/2022-12/12/c_838810.htm (1 cited row).
- Supreme People’s Court, 2024-11-16: https://english.court.gov.cn/2024-11/16/c_1046211.htm (1 cited row).
- Illinois Supreme Court, 2025-01-01: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/cb3d6da3-66c7-469d-97f3-41568bdeee8c/ISC%20AI%20Policy%20Bench%20Card.pdf (1 cited row).
- Illinois Supreme Court, 2025-01-01: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf (1 cited row).
- Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, 2026-01-15: https://jud11.flcourts.org/docs/ao-html/1b10ef43-b414-40e5-88d7-401f46d0a081.html (1 cited row).
- Kansas Supreme Court, 2025-02-27: https://kscourts.gov/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Orders/2025-CM-017.pdf?ext=.pdf (1 cited row).
- Supreme Court of Louisiana Technology Commission, 2025-10-03: https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf (1 cited row).
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2024-05-28: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202212581.pdf (1 cited row).
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2024-09-05: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202310478.pdf (1 cited row).
- Ministerio Público Fiscal de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, 2017-08: https://mpfciudad.gob.ar/institucional/2020-03-09-21-42-38-innovacion-e-inteligencia-artificial (1 cited row).
- Nevada Administrative Office of the Courts, 2025: https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/46693/AI_Guide_for_Judicial_Officers.pdf (1 cited row).
- TJSP; TRT4; TRT8, 2024: https://paineisanalytics.cnj.jus.br/single/?appid=51977be5-96d0-4362-98ff-ed3eb3337781&sheet=maXvpqE&theme=horizon&lang=pt-BR&opt=ctxmenu,currsel&select=Ramo,&select=Tribunal,&select=projetoIA2024Tribunal&select=nomeProjeto (3 cited rows).
- Supreme Court of India Registry, 2025-03-20: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113224 (4 cited rows).
- DrugDetect buyers group (KEMEA, DJI, Belgian SPF Justice DG-EPI, Spanish Interior), 2024-02-29: https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/126018-2024 (1 cited row).
- Domstoladministrasjonen, 2025-03-27: https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/196197-2025 (1 cited row).
- Domstoladministrasjonen, 2025-09-03: https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/572841-2025 (1 cited row).
- GovTech Platforms GmbH, 2024-12-23: https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/786986-2024 (1 cited row).
- Arizona Supreme Court, 2024-10-30: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/22/admorder/Orders24/2024-207.pdf?ver=Man-EEuRyvpQ_6nete_7Ng%3d%3d (1 cited row).
- Arizona Supreme Court, 2024-01-24: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/22/admorder/Orders24/2024-33.pdf (1 cited row).
- Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, 2025-11-13: https://www.copfs.gov.uk/publications/how-copfs-will-use-artificial-intelligence-ai/html/ (1 cited row).
- Juzgado del Circuito de Cartagena, 2024-08-02: https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2024/T-323-24.htm (1 cited row).
- Washington State Board for Judicial Administration, 2025: https://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_bja/BJA%20AI%20Statement%20of%20Principles.pdf (1 cited row).
- West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission, 2023: https://www.courtswv.gov/node/7123 (1 cited row).
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2025-02-20: https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/Ross-v-United-States-23-CM-1067-S.pdf (1 cited row).
- Cafcass, 2024-12-17: https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/cafcass-genesys-chatbot (1 cited row).
- His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, 2025-07-30: https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/hmpps-key-work-quality-assurance-automation (1 cited row).
- His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, 2025-06-05: https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/hmpps-violence-in-prisons-estimator (1 cited row).
- Ministry of Justice, 2024-12-17: https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/moj-data-first-splink (1 cited row).
- Ministry of Justice, 2025-10-08: https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/moj-ndelius-contact-log-semantic-search (1 cited row).
- Ministry of Justice, 2025-10-06: https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/moj-splink-master-record (1 cited row).
- Office of the Public Guardian, 2026-08-07: https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/office-of-public-guardian-investigations-assistant (1 cited row).
- Crown Prosecution Service, 2025-08-28: https://www.gov.uk/algorithmic-transparency-records/the-crown-prosecution-service-correspondence-drafting-tool (1 cited row).
- HM Courts & Tribunals Service, 2026-04-13: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ai-court-transcripts-to-boost-access-to-justice-for-victims (1 cited row).
- HM Courts & Tribunals Service; Ministry of Justice; The Probation Service, 2026-06-08: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ai-tech-ambition-to-deliver-smarter-justice-for-victims (3 cited rows).
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary; HM Courts & Tribunals Service; His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, 2025-07-31: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-action-plan-for-justice/ai-action-plan-for-justice (3 cited rows).
- Connecticut Judicial Branch, 2026-08-10: https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdf (1 cited row).
- Connecticut Judicial Branch, 2024-02-01: https://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/CTJBResponsibleAIPolicyFramework2.1.24.pdf (1 cited row).
- Hong Kong Judiciary, 2024-07: https://www.judiciary.hk/doc/en/court_services_facilities/guidelines_on_the_use_of_generative_ai.pdf (1 cited row).
- U.S. Department of Justice — Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Department of Justice — Department-wide; U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation; multiple bodies, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/ai/ai-inventory (6 cited rows).
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Trial Court, 2025-11-12: https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai (1 cited row).
- State Bar of Michigan Judicial Ethics Committee, 2023-10-27: https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155 (1 cited row).
- Ministerio de la Presidencia, Justicia y Relaciones con las Cortes, 2024: https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/JusticiaEspana/ProyectosTransformacionJusticia/Documents/Spains_Policy_on_the_use_of_AI_in_the_Justice_Administration.pdf (1 cited row).
- Ministerio de la Presidencia, Justicia y Relaciones con las Cortes, 2024-10-21: https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/institucional/gabinete-comunicacion/noticias-ministerio/jornada-metafuturo (4 cited rows).
- United Arab Emirates Ministry of Justice, 2024-12-12: https://www.moj.gov.ae/en/artificial-intelligence.aspx (4 cited rows).
- New York State Unified Court System, 2025-10: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf (1 cited row).
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2025-09-09: https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1 (1 cited row).
- Rama Judicial de Colombia, Unidad de Transformación Digital e Informática, 2025: https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/web/utdi/inteligencia-artificial1 (1 cited row).
- Centre of Registers and Information Systems, 2026-09-07: https://www.rik.ee/en/international/ai-solutions (1 cited row).
- Singapore Small Claims Tribunals, 2024-12, 2025-09-10: https://www.sgpc.gov.sg/api/file/getfile/Media%20Release_New%20Generative%20AI%20Powered%20Case%20Summarisation%20Tool%20to%20Help%20SCT%20Users.pdf?path=/sgpcmedia/media_releases/sgcourts/press_release/P-20250910-1/attachment/Media%20Release_New%20Generative%20AI%20Powered%20Case%20Summarisation%20Tool%20to%20Help%20SCT%20Users.pdf (2 cited rows).
- Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, 2024-03-27: https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/AdministrativeOrders/AdminOrders/AO%202024-011.pdf (1 cited row).
- Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2025: https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025 (1 cited row).
- Supreme Court of Virginia, 2025-05-07: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf (1 cited row).
- SafeLegalAI public-sector explorer and JSON export: /public-sector and /public-sector.json.
- SafeLegalAI GitHub release repository: github.com/SafeLegalAI/justice-ai-deployments.
- Internet Archive Wayback availability API checks for the three cited TED notice URLs returned no archived snapshots on 7 September 2026.
Reuse this research
Quote it, cite it, forward it — CC BY 4.0 for the data and figures; the linked official documents are the record. Suggested citation and a link to this exact report: