No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

The arrival of spring has prompted our annual estimate of the number of decisions that the supreme court will file by the end of its term this summer.  Given the remarkable plunge in the court’s output last term—only 14 decisions, far below the total in any year over the past century—much curiosity accompanies predictions for 2024-25.[Continue Reading…]

This week’s decision in Jeffery A. LeMieux v. Tony Evers brought a point to the Affirmed (for an amicus brief by Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols) and to the Writs (for an amicus brief by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty).  Click here for the updated standings.

Numerous articles have wrestled with the question of whether amicus briefs influence judicial decisions.  These essays generally conclude that in some cases amicus involvement can impact outcomes—by providing technical expertise or discussing the broader implications of a ruling, for instance.  However, unless a majority opinion closely follows the line of argument (and even the wording) in an amicus brief, or lauds the brief extensively in some other way, it is often impossible to establish to what degree an amicus party helped shape the findings of a majority opinion.  Still more inaccessible is the answer to a bolder question: Would a court have ruled for a different party had amici been absent altogether?

No such mystery cloaks the AI justice employed in a recent post.  There, we asked Google’s NotebookLM to consider only the parties’ briefs to determine which among them made the most compelling arguments.  Today we’ll add amicus briefs to the mix and see if their contributions ever persuade our AI umpire to change its “mind.”[Continue Reading…]

The Affirmed padded their lead this week with five points from Lindner & Marsack (for a brief and oral argument in Oconomowoc Area School District v. Gregory L. Cota).

Click here for the complete standings.

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

Who can doubt that technology is supplanting human beings as an arbiter of our endeavors.  Whether replacing baseball umpires calling balls and strikes, HR personnel ranking job candidates, or university professors grading students’ work, such developments are proliferating along with our embrace of artificial intelligence (AI).

Could the day be far off when AI supersedes corporeal judges?  After all, an artificial judge would be incredibly fast, tireless, consistent and, it is said, free of human emotions and biases.  Current US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has likened a good judge to an umpire—a neutral figure who does not let personal penchants shape decisions^[1]—and some may contend that AI can (or soon will) fit that requirement better than humans. 

Indeed, countries around the world are already experimenting with AI to help judges, and AI-assisted arbitration platforms are gaining prominence.  Emboldened by this, let’s try an experiment that enlists Google’s NotebookLM to scrutinize the briefs in Wisconsin Supreme Court cases and appraise the persuasiveness of the parties’ arguments.  Not only can NotebookLM read a set of briefs in just a few seconds, it then explains in considerable detail which party was most convincing.^[2]  Although these “verdicts” are based on the parties’ briefs alone (not oral arguments)—and bearing in mind the familiar cautions associated with AI output of any sort—it should be interesting to compare NotebookLM’s conclusions with the positions taken by each of the seven justices.^[3][Continue Reading…]

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.

No decisions were filed this week–hence, no change in the standings.