Regulation Tracker · 20 questions
Rules that bar AI from adjudicative reasoning: deciding cases, drafting judgments, sentencing, bail, risk scoring or credibility findings.
As of 2026-09-04, 10 of 130 countries and entities have a binding rule for AI barred from deciding cases, 18 have official guidance, 3 have a proposal, 1 are set by case law, 91 were checked with nothing found and 7 remain unclear. Binding countries: Brazil, China, Colombia, France, India, Israel, Italy, Nepal, Philippines, Spain.
Tap or hover a country. Faint land has no record yet. Miller projection; boundaries as published by Natural Earth (India point of view) — see the disclaimer.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
CNJ Resolution 615/2025 requires human supervision of every AI-assisted judicial act and restricts high-risk uses, so AI may support but not replace the judge's decision. Resolution 332/2020 had already barred AI from criminal sentencing recommendations.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Supreme People's Court auxiliary-adjudication principle: AI shall not substitute for the judge in any case, and results are supplementary references only.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 8(3)-(4): judges must not use AI to assess evidence, scrutinise facts, make value judgments or resolve legal problems, nor motivate or adopt decisions based solely on AI answers. Judgment T-323/2024 held that AI cannot substitute the judge's reasoning.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Article 47 of the loi Informatique et Libertés (6 Jan 1978) forbids any judicial decision involving an assessment of a person's behaviour being founded on automated processing profiling that person. The Conseil d'État charter restates it: 'l'IA est un outil qui jamais ne décide' — AI may not interpret a rule, establish or assess facts, apply law to facts or propose an outcome. Separately, article L. 111-13 COJ (inserted by loi 2019-222, art. 33) makes it a criminal offence to reuse judges' and clerks' identity data to evaluate, analyse, compare or predict their professional practices — France's unique ban on judge analytics.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Kerala and Gujarat High Court policies bar AI from decision-making, evidence evaluation, bail and sentencing. In Gadiya (2 September 2026) the Supreme Court set aside a penalty order built on AI-fabricated citations, holding that AI may serve as training wheels but must not take the pilot's seat. Draft national regulations would generalise the prohibition.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
Procedure 01-26 states AI is an aid not intended to replace the human element in the court system, and does not diminish judges' and staff members' discretion or responsibility. Automated administrative or registry actions affecting litigants' rights must carry a route of objection.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Law 132/2025 article 15(1) reserves to the judge all decisions on law, facts, evidence and the adoption of measures, so AI may only assist. Article 14(2) applies the same instrumental and support limit to public administration, with the human remaining solely responsible.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
ICT Policy clause 5.2.1 bars AI use that directly affects judicial decisions; the Chief Registrar stated that AI will not write judgments, writ petitions or decisions requiring judicial discretion.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The strongest formulation in the region: under the Framework, AI tools or their output must under no circumstance serve as the sole, primary or determinative basis of any adjudicatory outcome; CJCA Canon VI, Section 3 requires a judge personally to write all decisions and resolutions.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Instruccion 2/2026 prohibits AI operating autonomously to decide, evaluate facts or evidence, or interpret and apply the law, and bars incorporating AI content without critical personal validation. Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 article 57 allows AI-assisted drafts only as support that cannot become a resolution without the judge's intervention.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Santa Fe Circular 25 of April 2025: AI is complementary, decisions remain the exclusive responsibility of judges and AI cannot replace judicial reasoning. The Rio Negro protocol requires human control at every stage. There is no national rule.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
NSW judicial guidelines cl 4-5: judges must not use Gen AI to formulate reasons for judgment or to assess or analyse evidence, and no part of a draft judgment may be submitted to a Gen AI program. Victoria's judicial guidelines bar Gen AI from decision-making and judgment reasoning.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No statute bars AI adjudication, but the CJC guidelines state judges hold exclusive responsibility for their decisions and cannot delegate decision-making authority, and the Federal Court has committed (29 Sep 2025 interim principles) not to use AI or automated decision-making to determine case outcomes without prior public consultation.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Acta 244-2025 article 17: judicial decisions are always human and non-delegable; judges may not delegate evidence assessment or resolution of the dispute to AI, and transcription and translation tools are preliminary support only, to be reviewed and certified by a person.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
CEPEJ(2025)18Final: a human judge must always decide and AI output is never binding. The CJEU AI Ethics Charter (26 Jan 2026) states AI systems 'shall not be entrusted with decision-making responsibilities' and that Judges and Advocates General remain in full control. No EU statute bans AI-drafted judgments.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No German rule barring AI from judgment drafting. The DSK Orientierungshilfe (6 May 2024) §1.6 states there must be 'keine automatisierte Letztentscheidung', reflecting Art. 22 GDPR; AI Act recital 61 and Annex III point 8(a) treat judicial-support AI as high-risk and reserve the final decision to the human judge.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Judiciary's guidelines state that using generative AI for legal analysis, research or reasoning in judicial work is not recommended, a discouragement rather than the outright prohibition used in New South Wales or Victoria. No rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning in terms.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Profession only. No law bars AI-made judicial decisions. PERADI's guideline prohibits fully automated legal decisions and any use that eliminates human control. The draft Presidential Regulation on AI ethics is reported to include prohibited-use categories.
International bodies · verified 2026-09-04
Non-binding but uniform: CEPEJ(2025)18 states judicial power is exclusively for courts and generative-AI output is never binding; UNESCO principles 1.13-1.15 say AI shall not replace judicial decision-making; SVAMC Guideline 6, Ciarb 8.2, VIAC para 2 and the SCC Guide bar arbitrators from delegating decisions.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Judicial Council guidelines: AI must not be used to determine outcomes or draft judicial reasoning. Not a statute or court rule.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The Rechtspraak AI strategy point 9 states plainly: 'Rechterlijke oordeelsvorming (zoals een robotrechter) sluiten we echter uit.' It cites the AI Act and CCJE Opinion 26 on preventing improper AI influence on judicial reasoning. Not a court rule; there is no statutory ban.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The NJPMC guidelines of 29 April 2026 keep judicial decision-making firmly in human hands. Ishfaq Ahmed (2025) held that AI must never supplant judicial discretion and must respect the Article 10A fair-trial right.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
CSM Recommendations, principle 2 and Recommendation 7: AI may never replace judges in deciding, evaluating facts or evidence, or interpreting and applying the law; AI-generated content must not enter decisions without full personal validation, and no profiling or risk-scoring beyond what the law authorises is permitted.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Guidebook and court-administration statements hold that AI must not replace judicial judgment; the planned sentencing AI is to provide comparable-case references only, with sentencing remaining with judges.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Judicial Yuan stated in August 2023 that its generative-AI drafting system covers only dangerous-driving and fraud-accessory cases and that fact-finding, application of law and sentencing remain entirely with the judge. The 2026 guidelines state that AI may only assist adjudication.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Judiciary guidance: AI may not be used to decide cases or draft reasoning; judges remain responsible.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No binding prohibition. The July 2025 interim guidance cautions against delegating core judicial functions, including decision making and case adjudication, and advises extreme caution on novel legal questions. Individual judges (for example Judge Neals, D.N.J.) have adopted chambers policies barring clerk and intern AI drafting.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Same source: humans bear final responsibility for every result, and the court's journal stresses that AI is a support tool rather than a substitute for independent judicial reasoning. No binding prohibition has been published.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Protocol directive 1: no AI may issue, replace or determine judicial decisions, and judges cannot motivate rulings with algorithms. The July 2026 bill would make incorporating unverified AI content a serious disciplinary offence for judicial personnel. Neither is in force.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
The draft Judiciary AI Policy reportedly maintains a boundary between administrative automation and adjudicative discretion, treating AI as decision support and not a decision-maker, with mandatory human oversight and audits for bail-assessment and predictive-sentencing tools. Draft only.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
The draft judiciary policy expressly bars AI from adjudicative functions — evaluating evidence, assessing credibility, interpreting or applying law, generating substantive legal reasoning, and determining bail, sentence or risk. Conference resolution 5.2 asks for greater specificity on permissible and prohibited uses; resolution 5.3 keeps judicial reasoning and determination central.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The same August 2025 criteria hold that technology operates as an auxiliary and not as a substitute, and that deliberation and the final decision remain strictly within the jurisdictional sphere of the judge or magistrate. There is no statutory or regulatory prohibition.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Austrian rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026; the EU AI Act (Annex III point 8(a), recital 61) and art. 22 GDPR apply.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The iGA policy's first principle requires that the final decision in important matters remain under human control, and its second pillar requires human oversight so that responsibility rests with people, not machines — but it is not addressed to adjudication.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Belgian rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026; the EU AI Act (Annex III point 8(a), recital 61) and art. 22 GDPR are the operative constraints.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Danish rule expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the position rests on judicial independence and CEPEJ guidance rather than a domestic instrument.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Egyptian Charter for Responsible AI states accountability must rest with natural or legal persons and that AI systems should not be given legal personality, but this is generic and not addressed to adjudication.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Estonian instrument expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning. Reports of an Estonian 'robot judge' have never corresponded to any adopted rule or deployment. No rule found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies. Law 4961/2022 requires algorithmic impact assessments and registers for public-sector AI, which would cover court systems, but it does not address adjudication expressly.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No rule expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the position rests on judicial independence under the Constitution and the Courts Act, not on an AI-specific instrument. No rule found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule exists. The Supreme Court's stated design principle for its pilot is that AI assists only with summarising records and issue lists, never with judgment.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Latvian instrument expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the position rests on judicial independence and the Law on Judicial Power rather than an AI-specific rule.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Lithuanian instrument expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the position rests on judicial independence under the Constitution and the Law on Courts rather than an AI-specific rule.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Luxembourg rule found as of 4 September 2026; the EU AI Act (Annex III point 8(a)) and art. 22 GDPR apply.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No Malaysian rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning or judgment drafting. The only official position is the Sabah and Sarawak Judiciary's statement, accompanying its sentencing tool, that AI does not displace the role of judges.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies. The Artificial Intelligence Regulations require magistrate authorisation for law-enforcement post-remote biometric identification, not for adjudication.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The September 2025 CSPJ-UNESCO consultation adopted the guiding statement that decision-making remains the magistrate's responsibility, but this is not an adopted rule.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Notably permissive. The judicial guidelines contain no restriction on using generative AI in judgment writing or in the assessment of evidence, in contrast with the New South Wales, Victorian and Hong Kong instruments. Control is exercised through the accuracy and confidentiality principles instead.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Norwegian rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning. Domstoladministrasjonen's public position is that no suspicion may arise that a judgment was written by AI, but this is stated policy, not an instrument.
MTCIT’s AI policy stresses human oversight in sensitive decision-making, but no judicial rule barring AI adjudication or judgment drafting was found.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Only a policy statement, that AI will not replace judges, magistrates or officials, made at a January 2026 press conference. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule. Supreme Court statements on the Curia assistant stress that judges remain responsible and that AI is assistance rather than substitute, but no binding or written guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Polish rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the Ministry of Justice's stated position that AI supports rather than replaces judges is policy, not a binding instrument.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing or bail decisions found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies and the implementing statute assigns justice-related high-risk oversight to the Information Commissioner.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Swedish rule expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning. Domstolsverket's stated position is that AI is used for support tasks only, not decision-making, but this rests on practice and CEPEJ guidance rather than a domestic instrument.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No Swiss rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026. Art. 21 of the revised DSG (in force 1 Sep 2023) requires notification of automated individual decisions and a right to be heard, and the FDPIC says people keep the right to challenge an automated decision, but this is general data-protection law rather than a judicial rule.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No binding prohibition found as of 4 September 2026. Ministry of Justice statements accompanying the UYAP AI module (Aug 2026) say the system only classifies documents and recommends a filing type to staff, and is not a decision-making mechanism replacing judges or prosecutors, but this is a description not a rule.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning. Official announcements of the integrated AI judicial platform (28 Jul 2026) state judges retain sole authority over final rulings, but this is a design statement, not a published rule.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched — no discovery search was available. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Czechia as a Council of Europe member but is not a domestic instrument.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No domestic instrument barring AI from adjudicative reasoning was located. Judicial independence under the Constitution and CEPEJ(2025)18Final supply the position in practice, but no Finnish rule was verified.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Hungary as a Council of Europe member but is not a domestic instrument.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Romania as a Council of Europe member but is not a domestic instrument.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not established. No Singapore instrument barring AI from adjudicative reasoning was located; the court guide does not address judicial decision-making.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Not researched. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Slovakia as a Council of Europe member but is not a domestic instrument.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Not substantiated. No Thai instrument barring AI from adjudicative reasoning was located.
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "AI barred from deciding cases" by country, https://safelegalai.com/regulation/category/ai-decision-prohibition (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
Brazil
China
Colombia
France
India
Israel
Italy
Nepal
Philippines
Spain
Argentina
Australia
Canada
Chile
European Union
Germany
Hong Kong SAR
Indonesia
International bodies
Ireland
Netherlands
Pakistan
Portugal
South Korea
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States
Vietnam
Ecuador
Kenya
South Africa
Mexico
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brunei
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Iceland
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macao
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
North Macedonia
Norway
Oman
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Slovenia
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Türkiye
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Czechia
Finland
Hungary
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
Thailand