Summary
Bloomberg Law reports that Justice Amy Coney Barrett said on May 9, 2026, that the US Supreme Court is not using AI because of security concerns. The story is useful because it captures a rare institution-level statement from the top of the judicial system: even while lawyers and lower courts keep experimenting with AI, the confidentiality and cyber-risk bar at the Supreme Court still appears high enough to block adoption.
Why It Matters
This is a strong direct legal story because it adds a new lane to an archive already crowded with sanctions and filing-rule records.
- It shows that judicial AI resistance is not only about hallucinations or ethics; it is also about institutional security and confidentiality.
- It suggests the adoption curve for AI in law may keep splitting by setting, with higher-risk institutions moving more slowly than firms or lower courts.
- It matters to lawyers advising courts, litigants, or vendors because it signals that productivity gains alone may not overcome cyber and secrecy concerns.
- It gives a clearer benchmark for how elite appellate and court-facing practice may differ from broader legal-market experimentation.
What the Source Says
Bloomberg Law reported that Barrett said at the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas, that the court is not using AI because it would be insecure and that the public can trust Supreme Court opinions are not AI-generated. The article framed the comment against a broader legal backdrop in which practitioners increasingly use AI tools and justices keep getting public questions about how those tools are affecting Supreme Court practice. Bloomberg also linked the remark to Barrett's earlier acknowledgment that lawyers have already used AI to anticipate questions from the bench, which sharpens the contrast between advocate-side adoption and court-side restraint.