This project is ongoing. Descriptions, methods and results may be updated after further validation.
Educational and informational content. It is not legal advice, guidance for a specific case or an institutional position. Examples and analyses use only legitimate sources and public data, aggregated or properly anonymised.
Research question
Are the state courts adopting AI at the same pace at which they develop security, governance, data-protection and incident-response controls?
Motivation
AI systems in the judiciary handle sensitive data and decisions that affect rights. The study checks, court by court, whether adoption came with minimum governance and security structures.
Data
- Regulations, ordinances and public documents of the 27 state courts
- Replication matrix published under a CC BY 4.0 licence
Methodology
- Comparative document analysis across six dimensions: data governance; information-security policy; data-protection officer; impact assessment; incident response; AI regulation
Limitations
- Final counts are under validation and are not disclosed until the manuscript is complete.
- The analysis captures the existence of public rules, not their effectiveness.
Implications
- Parameters for AI security and governance policies in the judiciary.
Planned applied products (possible outreach, subject to registration)
- Open replication data (matrix of the 27 courts)