VA HB 1642: Artificial intelligence-based tool; definition, use of tool

Operative sections

• Va. Code §19.2-11.14(A): defines AI-based tools as machine-based systems or algorithms that generate recommendations or predictions.
• Va. Code §19.2-11.14(B): criminal-justice decisions remain with a judicial officer or other human decision-maker.
• Va. Code §19.2-11.14(B): AI recommendations or predictions are subject to challenges or objections permitted by law.

Text

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 without the involvement of a human decision-maker. The use of any recommendation or prediction from an artificial intelligence-based tool shall be subject to any challenge or objection permitted by law.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in Virginia

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Decisions on the record

• In re MaharUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2026-07-31

  The Eastern District of Virginia bankruptcy court dismisses Alicia Mahar’s adversary complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Footnotes note that counsel cited a nonexistent In re Coastal Carolina Fruit Company decision and supplied incorrect court, Westlaw, or date information for three other mortgage cases.

• Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al.United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia · 2026-05-20

  On 2026-05-20, in Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al, the Western District of Virginia granted dismissal of most claims and warned that any future filing must be supported by real law. Counsel cited Peal v. Commonwealth even though the court found the authority did not exist.

• Burnley v. ValentinU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · 2026-03-18

  On 2026-03-18, the Eastern District of Virginia enforces a settlement agreement after an evidentiary hearing. The plaintiff argued an audio recording was AI-cloned or manipulated; the court applied Rule 901, found the recording authentic, credited voice-identification evidence, and rejected the authentication challenge.

• Suiter v. GM - General Motors, LLCUnited States District Court for the Western District of Virginia · 2026-03-12

  Western District of Virginia on 2026-03-12 in Suiter v. GM - General Motors, LLC found the self-represented party's brief contained three citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations, mischaracterized authority. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

• Gail Fung v. Liberty UniversityUnited States District Court for the Western District of Virginia · 2026-02-24

  Western District of Virginia on 2026-02-24 in Gail Fung v. Liberty University found the self-represented party's complaint contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.